- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 01:32:46 +0100
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat, [...] > This would mean that rdf-entailment (as it will be called, ie > entailment with respect to the rdf: namespace) will become a bit more > like rdfs entailment is now; but only a bit like it. (Jos, sorry to > make your life more complicated, but I think it will actually work > out better for the entailment examples, in the end. ) I try to follow that ``PatH''... > The following are true in any rdf interpretation of the rdf > vocabulary (three typings and two domainings:) > > rdf:domain rdf:type rdf:Property . > > rdf:range rdf:type rdf:Property . > > rdf:type rdf:type rdf:Property . > > rdf:domain rdf:domain rdf:Property . > > rdf:range: rdf:domain rdf:Property . yes, although rdfs:domain rdf:type rdf:Property . rdf:type rdf:type rdf:Property . can be entailed from rule 1b the others are indeed basic. (I also assume that domain and range still live in the rdfs namespace) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2001 19:33:00 UTC