- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:45:04 +0100
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
At 09:20 30/04/2003 -0400, Frank Manola wrote: >Or rather, whether this is true *in RDF* (as opposed to in OWL). The >point is that, as I read the Semantics document, the only semantic >condition imposed on the collection vocabulary is that the type of rdf:nil >must be rdf:List. This, of course, doesn't apply to the subject of an >rdf:first, so the inference Tim wants drawn would seem to be a semantic >extension which might be true for OWL, but not necessarily for RDF per >se. It seems to me the explanation would have to cover this point in some way. In the semantics doc, there's also: [[ rdf:first rdfs:domain rdf:List . rdf:rest rdfs:domain rdf:List . ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#rdfs_interp from which the rest flows through RDFS entailments. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 15:53:03 UTC