- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:56:00 +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: >>Comments on rdfs:member and rdf:_nnn. >> >>1. About rdfs:member >> >>Why not constraint the rdfs:domain of rdfs:member to be rdfs:Container? >> (3.3 RDFS interpretations of the RDF Semantics spec) > >We could, indeed. This would constrain any other uses of rdfs:member on >user-defined container types, however, and it does not seem that it would >provide very much useful functionality. I will however raise this matter >with the WG. > >> Consider adding an axiomatic triple as follows: >> rdfs:member rdfs:domain rdfs:Container >> >>Why not specify rdfs:member to be an instance of >>rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty? >> (3.3 RDFS interpretations of the RDF Semantics spec) >> >> Consider adding an axiomatic triple as follows: >> rdfs:member rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty >> >>By so doing, we have: >>* rdfs:member is an instance of rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty (not >>just rdf:Property) that is a super-property of all the container >>membership properties. > >Right, that is an option. However there is also the intuition that the >ContainerMembershipProperties are totally ordered, and rdfs:member is >nowhere in that ordering. Again I think this is best discussed by the WG. > >Brian, an issue number for this?? This has been recorded as a last call comment http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-01 The WG will consider this comment and get back to you. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 12:57:43 UTC