W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Issue timbl-03 "collection clutter" proposal to close

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 06:47:57 -0400
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030424104757.GD2012@tux.w3.org>

* Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> [2003-04-24 11:22+0100]
> >>>Dan Brickley said:
> > I thought TimBL's point was that the 'this is a List' statements could
> > be inferred through knowledge of the rdfs:domain of rdf:first and 
> > rdf:rest. Anything familiar with the meaning of these rdf properties 
> > will know that they can be truly applied only to lists. In that light,
> > forcing parsers to emit this data explicitly is indeed rather redundant.
> 
> That was just one of the points, the owl semantics / lemmas / proofs
> use rdf:List.  I can't say throw it out since I don't understand if
> they are required.  My argument stands until somebody who does tells
> me that they are required/not required for these purposes too.

The OWL specs reference rdf:List, but they don't care how one learns about
these Lists, ie. whether an RDF/XML parser tells you directly versus 
whether they are inferred from the semantics of rdf:first and rdf:rest.

Could a member of the WebOnt WG confirm this?

It's not like we're considering the removal of rdf:List from the langauge,
we're just considering the removal of a requirement on RDF parsers to 
emit a claim that all RDF-based inference systems could figure out anyways.

Dan
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 06:48:03 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:59 EDT