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

Re: RDF lists

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:13:30 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020927111100.0434ce20@127.0.0.1>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 01:08 AM 9/27/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>>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.

Well, yes.  That's a structure I find myself using quite a lot 
(effectively, indicating a list by identifying its head node).  Isn't that 
just a particular case of relating a list to another entity? ...

>>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.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 12:24:56 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:05 EDT