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

Re: more feedback (re-open #rdfms-seq-representation?)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 08:55:48 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b42b9e84542c17a@[65.217.30.130]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
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?

The latter was what I had in  mind.

>
>Hm... how would we express that as a test case?

It is inconsistent; it has no models. Seems to me its the entailment 
equivalent of a non-parsing test case: something that is semantically 
illegal.

>as a reductio-ad-absurdum? i.e.
>
>	rdf:nil rdf:rest _:xxx
>	=>
>	:pigs :can :fly.

Well, maybe, but that seems like a confusing way to do it, since one 
wouldnt normally expect reasoners to make vacuous valid entailments 
like this anyway.

>
>>  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

I agree.

Pat

>
>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/


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 09:56:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:55 EDT