- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:30:10 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I agree with Pat and hope Jan can fix this before publication. Jeremy pat hayes wrote: > > Jan, my apologies for not grasping the point of your message earlier. > > The rule rdfD4 (when ddd's value class is a subclass of eee's value > space, you can conclude ddd rdfs:subClassOf eee ) isn't actually valid > any more, since we made subClassOf non-extensional. So I think we > should delete this rule. This will affect the xsd: test case we were > tal.king about recently, since now it is *never* valid to conclude a > subClassOf relation from the empty graph. > > An alternative would be to modify the semantics of datatyping to insist > that they are treated extensionally, but that would be hokey. > > Another cheap fix to the test cases doc would be to say in that case > that we were assuming the extensional interpretation for subClassOf, but > that is kind of tacky since the semantics doc says explicitly that those > assumptions are not rdf/s/D-valid. > > Sorry I didn't catch this earlier, guys, particularly as Jan already > caught it and I told him to drop it. > > Pat
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 04:36:06 UTC