- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 21:37:21 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> Subject: Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:41:45 +0100 > >PS: Here are (most of) my proposed changes to RDF: > >1/ Move rdf:type out of the theory into the metatheory > >2/ Remove reification. > >3/ Remove containers. > >4/ Remove several syntax abbreviations. > >I want 2 and 3 removed because they don't have appropriate meaning. I want > >4 removed because it interferes with the correspondence between RDF and > >XML. I want 1 moved because it causes semantic paradoxes in more-powerful > >formalisms. > > 1/ could you clarify? i.e. how would a theory a la > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3 be impacted? > 2/ RDFCore should clarify e.g. http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfr-theory.n3 > 2/ RDFCore should clarify > 4/ such as? > > -- > Jos 1/ Well, it would just about be trashed completely. :-) Moving rdf:type out of the theory changes just about everything. 4/ Well, the abbreviation that breaks striping is particularly problematic when considering XML compatability. This abbreviation changes the meaning of RDF/XML in a particularly hard-to-account-for way. peter
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2002 21:38:03 UTC