- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:10:40 -0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Pat: > > >The summary of all this is that if you want to be a > same-syntax extension > > >of the RDF model theory and you have > > >a) rdf:type as a property; > > >b) defined classes, like DAML+OIL restrictions; > > >c) some sort of complement or negation; and > > >d) self reference > I had wondered whether changing (a) and not having rdf:type as a property would be the simplest fix. The other three all strike me as desirable. It seems like a very minor change to RDF and one that I reckon those of us in both groups would be able to get passed the rest of RDF Core without too much difficulty. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 05:10:57 UTC