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 18:17:09 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 09:51 AM 11/1/02 +0000, 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? :
>>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.  We write the 
>abstract syntax so that lists must be syntactically well formed.  Anything 
>else is not well formed RDF.

I like the thinking, but...

This might open the possibility that the merge of two well-formed graphs is 
itself not well-formed.


Graph 1:

    ex:head rdf:first ex:item1 .
    ex:head rdf:rest  rdf:Nil .      <<<*** is that rdf:Nil or rdf:nil, BTW ???

Graph 2:
    ex:head rdf:first ex:item2 .
    ex:head rdf:rest  rdf:Nil .

Separately, these are well-formed, but if merged then ex:head then has two 
rdf:first properties.  Is this a problem?


Graham Klyne
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 14:14:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC