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

Re: RDF lists

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 01:08:28 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b77b9b9a5b14583@[65.217.30.172]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: 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.

Ah, yes. The existence of one such list suffices for both graphs, if 
you always use bnodes. But you know, you don't HAVE to use bnodes. 
Maybe

ex:Pat rdf:first :a .

for all I know.

>
>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.

Damn right. Speaking as one of them, that's one of the reasons I want 
to do RDF lists this way.

Pat



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 02:08:14 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:04 EDT