W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: ACTION 2001-08-24#9 : issues with containers

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 13:48:39 -0700
Message-Id: <v0421010ab7baee59011e@[130.107.66.237]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 12:12 PM 8/30/01 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>I understand that, but that still leaves open the issue that I was 
>>raising, which is: given that it doesn't have the properties 
>>contiguous, what does that entail? Are the 'missing' elements 
>>really there (but not mentioned), or are they genuinely not there? 
>>So in my example, if
>>xxx rdf:_1 aaa
>>xxx rdf:_3 ccc
>>does xxx have two, or at least three, members?
>
>Can the formalism be agnostic about this?

Yes, it could. I asked the question in case people wanted to have the 
question answered one way or the other.

>i.e. that the member corresponding to rdf:_2 may or may not exist, 
>and if it does exist its value is not stated by the above.  In the 
>absence of an rdf:lastThing or equivalent, the same being true for 
>any value of rdf:_n not explicitly stated.

Right.

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 16:47:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:39 EDT