- 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