- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:57:31 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Qu Yuzhong" <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 11:25 18/02/2003 -0600, pat hayes wrote: [...] >>2. About rdf:_nnn (section 3.2.2 of the RDF Semantics spec) >> >>Please consider adding one more example to clarify the meaning of >>rdf:_nnn, such as the following: >> >>_:xxx rdf:type rdf:Seq. >>_:xxx rdf:_2 <ex:a> . >>_:xxx rdf:_2 <ex:c> . >> >><ex:a> and <ex:c> should denote the same thing? In other words, the >>property rdf:_nnn should be a functional property? (I haven't found any >>explanation about this issue in the spec) > >Since RDFS has no notion of equality, there is no way to express the idea >of a functional property in RDFS. Whether or not a property is functional >can make no difference to any RDFS entailment. In semantic extensions like >OWL which can express the idea of a functional property, it would >certainly be natural to impose this requirement; but then that must be >part of the spec of the extended language. Qu, Does Pat's explanation of the absence of this entailment resolve your issue, or would you like the WG to consider this as a formal last call comment? Brian
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 12:57:38 UTC