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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:47:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030424.074748.65678602.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: danbri@w3.org, dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Issue timbl-03 "collection clutter" proposal to close
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:21:34 +0100

> > 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 would instead say

	Because of requests from a WebOnt member (hi Jeremy) the syntactic
	definition of OWL DL when written in RDF triples requires that list
	elements be subjects of triples with predicate rdf:type and object
	rdf:List. 

> 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.

I do not believe that the correspondence proof would need much change.

> 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).

I oppose this change.  OWL already depends on them being there.

> Jeremy

peter
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 07:48:10 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:00 EDT