- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:20:02 +0000
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 05/03/2010 10:56 PM, Gregory Williams wrote: > On Mar 5, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> We already have sd:languageExtension, subproperty of sd:feature, which does not define what an "extension" is. I read that as saying deference the range and see what you get - it's not the general concept of an extension that matters but the details of each specific one. In this aspects, property functions are similar; what matters is the detail of each one and the global naming. Custom filter functions are the same - there we know where in a query they can be used. > > Lee -- this is exactly the point I was trying to make on irc yesterday, but I think Andy was able to vocalize it more effectively. > > >> sd:propertyFeature rdfs:subClassOf sd:feature ; > > subPropertyOf, presumably? Yes :-( Andy > > [snip] > >> These two are features - whether they are property functions or data is neither here nor there. All it says is the feature is accessible by using certain property. > > This seems like an important point. For the rdfs:member case, this seems like it has some overlap with entailment, but obviously the general case can fall outside of the entailment work (like text:matches). > > .greg > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 7 March 2010 13:20:37 UTC