> > I had wondered whether changing (a) and not having rdf:type as > a property > > would be the simplest fix. > > I am not sure what the implications of "changing (a)" are, but > rdf:type has > a central role in RDF 1, specifically for the typedNode > production. There is > much software which depends on this, including software that traverses > rdf:type arcs as part of the inferencing process. > > The current RDF work is not intended to 'break' current software. > The change I was imagining is that: - typed node production continues unchanged, - triples involving rdf:type continue unchanged But rdf:type rdf:type rdfs:Property . is false. So that the rdf document (namespace liberties) <rdf:RDF> <rdfs:Property rdf:about="rdf:type" /> </rdf:RDF> is a contradicition. And any use of rdf:type with rdfs:subPropertyOf is also a contradiction. i.e. a change to RDF Schema not to RDF M&S. Certainly if these changes impact deployed code then they are not minor. JeremyReceived on Thursday, 21 February 2002 08:09:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:27 UTC