- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:48:58 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- Cc: roland@mathematik.uni-osnabrueckchange
This may raise more questions than it answers, but here's a stab for discussion: [[ Asserts that the object is a member of, or in some sense "belongs to" the subject resource. It is intended to be used as a common relationship between containers and all of their members, but is not so restricted and may be used with subjects that are not of type rdfrs:Container. ]] The overall vagueness of this leaves me wondering *why* rdfs:member doesn't have a domain of rdfs:Container. (If this issue is settled by the time this message is received, please ignore it.) #g -- At 09:20 01/08/03 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote: >RDFCore, > >We say that rdfs:member (the superproperty of rdf:_1, _2 etc) has an >rdfs:domain of rdfs:Resource, allowing it to be applied to anything >without implying that thing is a Container. > >I believe the text in >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/#ch_member >is perfectly consistent with that. *However* the rdfs:comment for >rdfs:member says: > >"A member of the subject container." > >This is a bug (thanks to Roland Schwaenz for spotting it). We need a new >and more non-commital rdfs:comment for this property. > >Creative suggests welcomed. In the absence of inspiration, I propose: > >rdfs:member, "A member of the subject resource." > >Admittedly this doesn't make much sense, but we don't give ourselves a >great deal of space in our rdfs:label glosses to expand on detail. > >Any objections to running with the above proposal? > >Dan ------------ Graham Klyne _________ GK@ninebynine.org ___|_o_o_o_|_¬ \____________/ (nb Helva) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @Cliveden, River Thames
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2003 07:56:41 UTC