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

to pull or not to pull [was: Re: Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f)]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:20:20 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
We are talking about rdf:Alt here:

At 16:23 13/02/2002 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>At 09:38 11/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>Oh well, sure, if we ignore the semantics then we can do anything. The 
>>>problem with Alt is that if you follow the, er, hint, then your 
>>>conclusions actually *contradict* valid RDF conclusions, ie in this 
>>>sense Alt is nonmonotonic.
>>Are you suggesting that we pull it entirely?
>>That will break anything that's used it.
>Right. Well, it will make it nonconformant, at any rate.
>>Saying its meaningless, is wimpier, but safer.
>Well, its not clear that it is safer in the long run. After all, the 
>actual CODE will still work, right? But we will be clear that it isn't 
>conformant. Lack of that clarity is itself dangerous, I would suggest.

It seems clear to me.  Experiemental explanatory text:


A resource of type rdf:Alt is an ordered collection.  A collection may be 
given the type rdf:Alt, as opposed to rdf:Bag or rdf:Seq, as a hint to the 
reader that typical processing by an application will be to select one 
member of the collection for processing.  For example, a schema designer 
might use rdf:Alt to represent the collection of mirror sites from which a 
file may be downloaded.  In all respects, other than this hint, a resource 
of type rdf:Alt is just like an rdf:Seq.


Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:22:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC