RE: The Peter paradox isn't.

> > 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.

Jeremy

 

Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 08:09:55 UTC