- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: 27 Sep 2001 10:56:03 +0200
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
On Thu, 2001-09-27 at 01:04, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > >9/ The model theory for RDFS is missing the requirement that the vocabulary > > > contain all the RDFS ``pre-defined'' URIs. > > > > Right. That seemed to not be a model-theoretic matter, to me. The MT > > assigns meanings to the triples it finds, but does not impose any > > requirements on what triples must be present. But on reflection, it > > maybe would be more coherent, and ultimately simpler, to insist that > > they be included. > > But RDFS has a base theory which I think should be in all models, so we get > to the same conclusion, perhaps via different rationales. Looks sound to me. Including the RDFS schema in every Schema-closure does not anymore seem convenient to me, but necessary. Pierre-Antoine
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 04:53:16 UTC