RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night.

At 13:40 20/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Original posting to RDF Core, this message also to Webont.
>As I understand it, the minimal unasserted triple proposal is that at least
>for daml:collection it would have been better if the triples with properties
>daml:first and daml:rest (and maybe those ending rdf:type daml:List ), were
>somehow special.

If we are to consider daml:collection as a use case, I have a dumb 
question.  Why does it exist?  Is the lack of closure on rdf containers the 
only reason, i.e. if we fixed that, would the need for daml:collection go away?


Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 10:15:49 UTC