W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: ACTION 20030425#4 [was Re: timbl-03]

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:14:27 -0400
Message-ID: <3EB02EA3.F2F9B103@mitre.org>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
CC: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

Yes;  as noted in an earlier interaction with Brian, this also applies
to RDFS.  As I said, the Primer would have to cover this point in some
way (given that at the point where the Primer talks about Collections,
it hasn't gotten to Schema yet).


Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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

Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 16:14:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC