- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Nov 2002 00:10:19 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 23:46, pat hayes wrote: > > Just how minimal do we want the list semantics to be? I honestly don't know. I think there is some "XML stuff" that you don't yet appreciate/understand, and I'm pretty sure I don't understand your picture of how WebOnt layers on RDF lists. > In particular, > is this satisfiable? : > > 7. > rdf:nil rdf:rest _:xxx . > > ? Or can I rule that out? Rule it out where? Are you messing around with the definitoin of simple-entialment? Or the defintion of RDF interpretation? Hm... how would we express that as a test case? as a reductio-ad-absurdum? i.e. rdf:nil rdf:rest _:xxx => :pigs :can :fly. > If not, our claim that lists are bounded > seems rather hollow, and that was the point of having them in the > first place..... Yes, I think we ought to reopen http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation The new information is: the 31May decision record wasn't clear enough to distinguish between positions that Pat/Dan/Jeremy/Graham would support and positions they wouldn't. Each of us thought we agreed at the time, but we discover now (especially when integrating this decision with WebOnt, a critical customer) that we didn't. For me, it was a borderline decision to add parseType="Collection" to RDF at all... not one that I would want to go with over anybody's objection. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 01:09:58 UTC