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

RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night.

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 22:28:14 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1016684895.26064.65.camel@dirk>
[-cc webont; I presume Brian didn't mean to crosspost]

On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 09:13, Brian McBride wrote:
> At 13:40 20/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >Original posting to RDF Core, this message also to Webont.
> >
> >As I understand it, the minimal unasserted triple proposal is that at least
> >for daml:collection it would have been better if the triples with properties
> >daml:first and daml:rest (and maybe those ending rdf:type daml:List ), were
> >somehow special.
> 
> If we are to consider daml:collection as a use case, I have a dumb 
> question.  Why does it exist?  Is the lack of closure on rdf containers the 
> only reason,

Pretty much.

And the ugliness of <rdf:li>.

Oh... but more substantively:
the hassle of dealing with an infinite number
of rdf:_1 rdf:_2 things. And the long
history of dealing with lists inductively,
i.e. as first/rest pairs.

> i.e. if we fixed that, would the need for daml:collection go away?

I think so.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 23:28:46 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:20 EDT