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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:18:55 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101527b8ec6e84d678@[65.217.30.94]>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Can't we split responsibility here.
>
>RDF Core provides:
>- rdf:parseType="collection"
>- rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:nil
>
>WOWG
>- provides functionality (i.e. uniqueness)
>
>
>Consider
>
>
><rdf:RDF>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#foo" rdf:parseType="collection">
>   </rdf:Description> 
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#foo" rdf:parseType="collection">
>     <rdf:Description rdf:about="#bar"/>
>   </rdf:Description>
></rdf:RDF>
>
>#foo is a non-standard collection with lengths of both 0 and 1.
>
>This could be legal RDF and ill-formed at the ontology level.
>
>Jeremy
>

Yes, this is what I thought (until yesterday) the proposal amounted 
to. I like this as it keeps RDF's hands clean but also lets WOWG do 
what it wants to do. On the other hand, one could take the line that 
if this is all that RDF is providing, why do *we* need to do it? I 
mean, they could just use the daml:collection vocabulary, right?

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 10:18:50 EDT

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