- From: Wolfgang Nejdl <nejdl@kbs.uni-hannover.de>
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:47:06 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: nejdl@kbs.uni-hannover.de, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Wolfgang, > > In > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0041.html > > you raised an issue with the RDF Schema candidate recommendation which was > captured in > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-primitive-properties > > as > > [[[ > > Summary: The submitter suggests that the properties rdfs:subClassOf, > rdf:type, rdfs:domain and rdfs:range should not be defined as instances of > rdf:Property, but should instead be primitive. It is contended that rdf > would then be less self referential and easier to understand. > > ]]] > > The RDFCore WG carefully considered this suggestion, but decided not to > proceed with it, on the grounds that no problem with the current proposal > had been identified. This decision is documented in: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#decisions > > Please could you reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments, > indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue. > Thanks for this question. Yes, I consider this issue settled in a meaningful way. The current MT resolves this issue nicely, and we have actually used the same approach in our O-Telos-RDF extension. Wolfgang > Brian McBride > RDFCore co-chair
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2001 10:47:23 UTC