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

Re: more feedback

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 Nov 2002 09:00:32 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1036162832.11220.41.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 03:51, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> At 23:46 31/10/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
> 
> >Just how minimal do we want the list semantics to be? In particular, is 
> >this satisfiable? :
> >
> >7.
> >rdf:nil rdf:rest _:xxx .
> >
> >? Or can I rule that out? If not, our claim that lists are bounded seems 
> >rather hollow, and that was the point of having them in the first place.....
> 
> Here I want to float an idea I have mentioned offline to Pat.
> 
> Would it make sense to restrict the structure of collections in the 
> *abtract syntax*.  Don't worry Dave, I don't think it affects the XML 
> syntax - it can only produce well formed lists already.

??? I don't see how you come to that conclusion.
It seems obviously false; witness the following counterexample:

	<rdf:Description about="#aBadList>
	  <rdf:first>1</rdf:first>
	  <rdf:first>2</rdf:first>
	</rdf:Description>

If the list has only one first, then "1" and "2" denote the
same thing; but they don't; they denote distinct things.

>  We write the 
> abstract syntax so that lists must be syntactically well formed.  Anything 
> else is not well formed RDF.
> 
> Brian
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 10:01:13 EST

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