Re: rdfs:Class vs. daml:Class ? from Brian McBride on 2002-03-20 (www-rdf-logic@w3.org from March 2002)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:58:22 +0000
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020320074847.00a7bf90@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>

At 13:41 19/03/2002 +0000, Ian Horrocks wrote:
[...]
> >
> > About your paper: has there been any official response to the idea of 
> using rdfs(fa) to
> > redefine the model for rdf and rdfs?
>
>Not much. There is a proposal to indicate some triples as being
>"non-asserted", which I believe can be seen as a very weak form of
>layered architecture (but when I suggested this to Pat he was rather
>dismissive).

I'd hate for folks to get the idea that RDFCore are being unresponsive to a 
problem.

This is the first I have heard of this proposal to redefine the model for 
RDF and RDFS, so its not surprising there has been no 'official response', 
at least from RDFCore.

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 03:00:18 UTC