Re: New Draft comments: Multiplicity

>
>>  As a way to alleviate the issue, and also have better matching between OA
>>> and RDF, I'd suggest the following "bridging" axioms:
>>> rdf:first rdfs:subPropertyOf oa:item .
>>> oa:item  owl:propertyChainAxiom  ( rdf:rest  oa:item ) .
>>> It think this would provide a sound basis on which the oa:item statements
>>> from Fig 4.3 could be derived.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>
>> While a great idea, I'm not sure that we can make assertions like this
>> about rdf:first?
>>
>> My preference, especially at this stage, would be to leave it alone
>> and add an editors note that ordering in RDF is inherently problematic
>> and future specifications may require changes to the mapping.  This
>> would also give an opportunity to explain why we introduce the classes
>> rather than just using Alt, Bag and List directly.
>>
>
>
> I'm ok for the editor note, but then I would use it as an argument for
> using rdf:List directly. The note can say that this would be reverted if
> RDF drops or changes lists (which btw I think it won't do: Bag, Seq and Alt
> are slightly questionable classes, but lists are used in many places, e.g.,
> OWL).
>
> By the way you could treat my suggestion for the axioms "bridging" between
> rdf:first/rdf:rest and oa:item. Perhaps re-expressing it as an algorithm to
> obtain oa:item statements from rdf:first/rdf:rest ones. It can be useful to
> have a (semi-)formal spec in the document. After all, whether it fits
> OWL(2-DL) or not does not matter much: data producers will have to
> implement these rules to obtain the desired oa:item statements!
>


There is plenty of existing work in that area. Including work I've
personally done.
I would make sure to not re-invent the wheel on ways of representing lists
in OWL.
I would postpone this to a later time rather than rush it now.

Paolo