- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: 2003年6月18日 23:32:19 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org
- Message-Id: <20030618.233219.68534253.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Thanks. I had somehow ignored the range constraints. peter From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com> Subject: Re: status of rdfs:Class Date: 2003年6月19日 00:10:28 +0200 > > It is the case that according to rdfs3 > > rdf:type rdfs:range rdfs:Class. > :x rdf:type :y. > => > :y rdf:type rdfs:Class. > > -- > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > > > > > "Peter F. > Patel-Schneider" To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org > <pfps@research.bell-l cc: > abs.com> Subject: status of rdfs:Class > Sent by: > www-rdf-comments-requ > est@w3.org > > > 2003年06月18日 09:21 PM > > > > > > > > I had always thought that > x rdf:type y . > rdfs-entailed > y rdf:type rdfs:Class . > but I am having problems getting this entailment to go through. > > So, is this supposed to be an entailment? > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Bell Labs Research > Lucent Technologies > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 23:32:31 UTC