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

Re: RDF lists

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:00:20 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020920165241.04423ec0@127.0.0.1>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: "pat hayes " <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 04:59 PM 9/20/02 +0200, Jos De_Roo wrote:


> >>Pat, I think I'm fine with that
> >>
> >>how can we express that
> >>when given
> >>   _:l1 rdf:first :a .
> >>   _:l1 rdf:rest :b .
> >>
> >>   _:l2 rdf:first :a .
> >>   _:l2 rdf:rest :b .
> >>
> >>then _:l1 and _:l2 are tidy
> >
> >Er...you can't. That is, there could be two lists with the same members.
>
>thus far I thought that 2 sequences with the same members
>*are* the same sequence (i.e. the denoted thing is the same)
>how could they ever be different, I mean semantically?

I think that even though they may be different lists (containing different 
graph nodes), if IR is closed under list construction and the given 
semantics for rdf:first, rdf:rest then each must entail the other -- by 
virtue always being true.

Tricker, I think, is how one gets the expected entailments when a list is 
related to some other entity -- I guess the OWL folks will have to sort 
that one.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 11:37:16 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:01 EDT