- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:42:01 +0300
- To: <phayes@ihmc.us>, <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Given > "In addition, if it is known that the value space of the datatype > denoted by ddd is a subset of that of the datatype denoted by eee, > then it would be appropriate to assert that > > ddd rdfs:subClassOf eee . > > but this needs to be asserted explicitly; it does not follow from the > subset relationship alone." I am favoring option (c). I'm also not opposed to Jeremy's (c++). > In rule terms, do y'all think that rdfD4 *ought* > to be a valid rule (ie to be undeniably true under all > circumstances), or would it be better to allow people to make, but > also be free to not make, subClassOf assertions about 'external' > datatypes? I think we should allow/require folks to make such assertions explicitly, if they want such entailments to hold. Patrick
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 03:46:56 UTC