Jonathan Borden scripsit:
> There isn;t much point in discussing either of these topics further, they
> are included in RDF for legacy purposes but left *undefined*. This is a
> polite way of saying that both of the above are *useless* -- you can't even
> argue the topic, because the WD gives no meaning over which to argue -- the
> ultimate in damned by faint praise.
Umm, I think you are severely over-interpreting. It's quite common for
a formal semantics to be incomplete, either because the omitted items
are intractable, or because they're just too annoying to specify.
That doesn't mean they aren't part of the deal.
--
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
--Nicholas van Rijn
John Cowan <>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com
