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

Re: more feedback

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 10:30:05 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021101102540.03376a00@127.0.0.1>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 11:46 PM 10/31/02 -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.....

Short answer:  I *think* it's OK to say that's not satisfiable.

Longer answer:
I've been sitting on the side of this debate, not because I'm bereft of 
opinion but because I haven't understood sufficiently what is being proposed.

I favour the idea that baseline RDF doesn't let FOL expressivity creep in 
through the back door (e.g. can the list semantics be twisted to express 
negation?), but sticks to the existential-conjunctive subset.

OTOH, I think it's fine that there be constraints on allowable 
interpretations involving specific vocabulary, as above.

What I can't tell is if these are conflicting goals.

#g







-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 11:42:49 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:56 EDT