RE: SEM: 5.5 List semantics

> Aha!  Here is my point of divergence.  Where does the RDF spec
> prohibit such
> conditions in the OWL model theory?  The OWL model theory imposes extra
> meaning on lots of the RDF namespace, including rdf:type, rdfs:Class, and
> rdf:Property.  Is this illegal?  If so, there is no way to provide an
> RDFS-compatible meaning for OWL.

I support Peter on this point; I believe DanC diverges and would prefer
I believe owl:List could also be made to work.

If we do decide to go this way it certainly should be communicated to RDF
Core as a consequence of their refusal to do list semantics


Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:47:16 UTC