W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:40:43 +0100
Message-Id: <BD7A0199-013F-4ED0-8FC6-6A7AB7C2EC29@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 11 Jun 2008, at 14:30, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
[snip]
> Hm. As an RDF/XML user, probably yes. As a turtle user, well, it  
> would be suboptimal...

Turtle can compile things behind the scenes as it wishes.

>> (I'll note that we're in this pickle due to removing punning on  
>> object and data properties :()
>
> Yep.... :-(
>
> Actually, Boris' mail did not refer to rdf:Seq/Bag/Alt and the  
> corresponding rdf:_n properties. There might be users out there  
> preferring those to Lists, in which case the same issue arises for  
> rdf:_n. (But I am not sure at all whether we should are bout those)

Container properties are not particularly easy to accommodate.  
Standard techniques call for an infinite number of predicates which  
is probably not a good idea to build in to the language (at least, it  
could have unknown ramifications). Since the general best practice  
for several years now has been to denigrate contatiners, I think it's  
a barrel of trouble we can safely leave unopened.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 13:38:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 June 2008 13:38:35 GMT