My apologies if this has already been discussed. Is it intended that the syntax provide a way to describe a list that contains literals? If so, how does that work? If not, that seems like a significant omission, that significantly limits the utility of the new list construct. I suppose one can always write out the list "longhand" with rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest and rdf:nil. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 12:05:58 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:50 EDT