- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:27:47 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 12:09 31/07/03 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 11:49, Graham Klyne wrote: > >[...] > > > [Checks original question...] > > > > [[ > > sss ppp ooo . > > > > rdf entail > > > > ppp rdf:type rdf:Resource . > > ]] > > > > Er, I missed this before, but what's rdf:Resource? > >My mistake - should be rdfs:Resource, and I take your point. > >I think this leads me to the conclusion that I'd have preferred >rdfs:Resource to be part of the RDF vocabulary and the above entailment >to hold in RDF. Well, that's been something I've wondered about myself, but it be a change from the original spec without any compelling justification that I could see. >But it may well be too late to make that change. I think so, since the proof I offered used other aspects of RDFS entailment (axiomatic triple, rdfs:domain and ICEXT conditions). If the entailment were true in RDF without the other RDFS semantic constraints, I would fear a new possibility of corner-case contradictions. #g --------------------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.net> Nine by Nine http://www.ninebynine.net/
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 09:58:04 UTC