W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2010

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:34:21 -0500
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.net>, Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6D52E167-29B2-4A4B-89FE-6C6D7762E2DD@ihmc.us>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>

On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
> Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>
>> That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is
>> called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...
>
> You can create some pretty awesome messes even without OWL:
>
> 	# An rdf:List that loops around...
>
> 	<#mylist> a rdf:List ;
> 		rdf:first <#Alice> ;
> 		rdf:next <#mylist> .
>
> 	# A looping, branching mess...
>
> 	<#anotherlist> a rdf:List ;
> 		rdf:first <#anotherlist> ;
> 		rdf:next <#anotherlist> .
>

They might be messy, but they are *possible* structures using  
pointers, which is what the RDF vocabulary describes.  Its just about  
impossible to guarantee that messes can't happen when all you are  
doing is describing structures in an open-world setting. But I think  
the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be  
solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round it.

Pat

> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 16:35:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:27 UTC