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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 24 Apr 2003 08:25:52 -0500
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1051190752.28482.1565.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 05:01, Dave Beckett wrote:
[...]
> to reject it on the grounds that it is being used by OWL and could
> not be added at a higher level since it is closedly tied to an
> RDf/XML syntax abbreviation.

er... are you sure it can't be added at a higher level?
It seems to me all we'd have to do is add

	rdf:first rdfs:domain rdfs:List.
	rdf:domain rdfs:domain rdfs:List.
	rdf:nil rdf:type rdfs:List.

to RDFS.


> This triple is part of the closed collection form added to the RDF
> model and RDF/XML syntax for use by OWL based on the DAML+OIL
> daml:Collection syntax extension to RDF/XML. 
> 
> The reason this could not be added at the OWL level is that it is
> generated by the rdf:parseType="Collection" syntax which is in the
> RDF/XML specification.

That seems circular. He's asking that it *not* be generated
by the Collection syntax.

>   There is no "hook" to allow optional adding
> of <x> rdf:type rdf:List for the generated notes.

Sure there is; rdfs:domain/range as above.

> rdf:List is refered to in several places throughtout the proposed OWL
> language and seems to have good uses:
> 
> 
> Example of using rdf:List explicitly for collection of datatyped literals
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/#EnumeratedDatatype
> 
> As the range of these three properties:
>   owl:distinctMembers
>   owl:intersectionOf
>   owl:oneOf
>   owl:unionOf

OK, but those uses don't say it has to be generated by parsers, as
far as I can tell. Have I missed something?

> See the RDF Schema of OWL http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/#appB
> 
> typically used in the examples with rdf:parseType="Collection" form:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#EnumeratedClasses
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DisjointClasses
> 
> 
> Used in OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax WD, 31 March 2003
> 
>   Translation to RDF Graphs
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/semantics-all.html#4.1
> 
>   5 RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
>     5.2. OWL Interpretations
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/semantics-all.html#rdf_List_rdf
> 
>     if E is             then                          Note
>              SI(E)..  CEXTI(SI(E))=   and
> 
>     rdf:List            IL           IL subsetof RI  This defines IL as
>                                                      the set of OWL lists. 
> 
> So it is needed to define OWL lists.
> 
> 
>   A.1 Correspondence for Descriptions (Informative)
>     Used in the proof for Lemmas 1, 4
> 
>   A.2 Correspondence between OWL DL and OWL Full (Informative)
>     Used in the proof-sketch for Lemma 5
> 
> ]]
> 
> 
> Dave
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 09:25:40 EDT

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