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

Re: rdf:list vocabulary

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 02:16:03 +0100
Message-Id: <83385E2E-D1E3-40A2-A798-E3A4B8E44F2A@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On May 28, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
> These syntax related uses of lists can IMO be clearly distinguished  
> from
> custom usage. In particular, the currently applied method of a  
> "canonical
> parsing process" in the reverse RDF mapping can first translate graphs
> matching these forms into the respective functional syntax  
> expressions, and
> then delete them from the source graph.Afterwards, all remaining  
> uses f
> list vocabulary are regarded as custom use.

This sort of punning has been done in Pellet for years. I believe  
I've proposed it a couple of times already :)
> I, personally, would appreciate to be able to model things like  
> this... not
> only in OWL Full. :-)

Using rdf:list for modeling is, IMHO, always a mistake of some sort  
(after all, they are *not* lists in the standard sense since you  
don't have, e.g., transitive closure). Your example is a good example  
of what not to do (IMHO).

However, this is pretty common. Better to discourage it by whinging  
than by fiat.

Received on Friday, 30 May 2008 01:16:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC