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

Re: Containers in RDF MT (probably off-topic)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:51:31 -0700
Message-Id: <v0421010bb7be31744bbb@[130.107.66.237]>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>(Another not strictly WG topic for now...)
>
>In the 28-Aug MT draft, section 4, the class extensions ISEQ and 
>IBAG are required toi be disjoint.  It's not clear why they need to 
>be disjoint.
>
>Indeed, I think this would prohibit some RDF that is arguably legitimate; e.g.
>
>  [ a rdf:Bag ; a rdf:Seq ;
>    rdf:_1 "member 1" ;
>    rdf:_2 "member 2" ]
>
>I see nothing in RDFM&S that prohibits this, and I think the 
>resource thus described is clearly in the class extensions of both 
>rdf:Bag and rdf:Seq.

Oh, OK. I guess I just assumed that they had to be disjoint since 
they were interpreted differently. In fact it would be easier if they 
weren't required to be disjoint, because then there really would be 
*nothing* special about rdf containers.

I will follow the consensus view on this issue, and have an open mind 
on the matter.

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 11:06:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:41 EDT