W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: addressing requirements around daml:collection (rdfms-seq-representation)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 23 Apr 2002 14:40:42 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1019590849.5315.2668.camel@dirk>
On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 14:29, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 17:35, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >>  >[...]

> >>  >>  Now this works perfectly well* when the oneOf claim
> >>  >>  is spelled out long-hand using first/rest/nil.
> >>
> >>  [To Dan:]
> >>  Well, that isn't clear.
> >
> >Sigh... I should have known better than to make that claim
> >without working out the details...
> >
> >>  After all, it is RDF-legal to add some other
> >>  rest/first/rest chains to the same bnodes,
> >
> >Well, first and rest are UniqueProperties.
> 
> There isn't any such notion in RDF.

Not yet; but I say, again:

|So the next proposal is:
|
|  * add parseType="collection" to RDF/xml;
|
|  * add rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:nil too.
|
|  * specify that parseType="collection"
|
|  is notation for first/rest/nil triples
|  ala daml:collection.

By 'ala daml:collection' I meant: including
the fact that first/rest are functional.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 15:40:42 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:35 EDT