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 07:59:34 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030424115934.GF2012@tux.w3.org>

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-04-24 07:47-0400]
> 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.

OK, thanks for the the additional context everyone. I withdraw my concerns 
and am now happy to go along with Dave's advice on the issue.

cheers,

Dan

 
> > Jeremy
> 
> peter
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 07:59:41 EDT

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