- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:14:27 -0400
- 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). --Frank 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