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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:21:34 +0100
Message-ID: <3EA7C8BE.1050104@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
CC: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>


> 
> 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?
> 



Sorry I should have read the thread before replying.

Due to the rather odd way that OWL DL works, these triples are needed.

i.e. without these triples the current OWL document do not work, and more 
difficult things would be needed to be done - the correspondence proof is 
an important example.

Of course everyone is right to say that if they were not there they could 
be inferred but ...
  they are needed in the OWL DL syntax - before the semantic reasoning part,
yes they could be inferred there, but that would be additional work, and a 
change.

I am interested in Peter's view; if we made this change Peter would have to 
do some work - if he were largely positive, I would change my position from 
favouring a reject to favouring an accept.
(cc-ing Peter on this message)
[The proposal is that RDF/XML parsers should not emit triples
_:x rdf:type rdf:List .
since they are redundant).

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 07:22:05 EDT

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