- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:11:36 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy wrote: > Also I give the HP proxy to Brian just in case there is a CR/PR vote. > > My current preference is PR, but I am clearly not sufficiently in touch with > an "HP" position, given Dave Reynolds implementation report which seemed to > me at least to be more negative, > > i.e. so far > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0076 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0278 > > we have no complete RDFS implementation (in terms of inference) > > This may be reason to go for a CR, possibly labelling those bits that are not > yet implemented as at risk. > > e.g. two of our RDFS implementors do not appear to buy into an infinity of > axiomatic triples ... Well (I do), I have some (additional builtin) code like if (goal.verb == RDFtype && goal.obj.deref().verb == RDFSContainerMembershipProperty && goal.subj.deref().verb.startsWith(RDF + "#_") // that goal succeeds to overcome issues with infinity (math: properties are similar for instance). > e.g. maybe we made the wrong call on the xmlsch-02 ... Maybe yes; I see that .NET platforms (MS, Mono, ...) have similar behaviour as xerces (which we also use) so maybe we should make all 4 of them positive, hm.. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 09:11:47 UTC