- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:05:06 +0200
- To: Tom Van Eetvelde <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Tom Van Eetvelde wrote:
> This doesn't seem right to me. Definitions have to be based on previously determined items, not on
> what yet has to follow.
that's right, but RDF statements about rdfs:range and rdfs:domain are no "definitions" of these concepts. They are just description of some properties of these concepts (namely, those properties that are expressible in RDF).
In other words, no RDF engine could become an RDF validator only by beeing fed with the serialization of Appendix A, because this is not a "definition". To be a validator, it must "know" the implicit semantics of rdfs:domain and rdfs:range (i.e. the semantics must be hard-coded in the validator) since it can not be expressed in RDF. On the other hand, any property of rdfs:domain and rdfs:range expressible in RDF can be "learned" (read from RDF serialization) dynamically.
Pierre-Antoine
--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2000 08:05:01 UTC