# Re: doubts about lists - part 2

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:49:38 -0400
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <22710.1205336978@cs.sunysb.edu>
```

> We initially had a treatment of lists as syntactic sugar:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/List_Constructor?action=recall&rev=18

More or less. It confuses Seq and Pair. Pair should not even be in the
syntax definition. And there is no need for a semantic definition.

> We could give a recursive definition of Equal applied to lists.

How exactly?

--michael

> -- Harold
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Michael Kifer
> Sent: March 12, 2008 10:51 AM
> To: RIF WG
> Subject: doubts about lists - part 2
>
>
>
>
> I should clarify myself in the previous post.
>
> I was not proposing to drop lists from the syntax, but rather to drop
> the semantic part altogether.
> Since we have function symbols, as Hassan noted, let's just treat lists
> as syntactic sugar.
>
> We can have symbols, rif:listPair and rif:nilList, and encode things
> like Seq(X,Y|W) in the usual way:
> rif:listPair(X,rif:listPair(Y, rif:listPair(W,nilList)).
>
> There is a slight problem with the fact that equality can make
> Seq(a,b) equal Seq(a,b,c). (Say, by equating these two the same IRI.)
> But we had the same problem with the semantics of lists.
>
> Now I am thinking that it is easier to fix that through the semantics
> than through syntactic restrictions. But it is not clear whether we
> should care that distinct lists might become equal.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> 	--michael
>
>
>
```
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 15:50:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:49 UTC