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

RE: timbl-03 collection clutter

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:00:21 -0500
Message-Id: <p05210612badef91688eb@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 10:40, pat hayes wrote:
>>  >PatH - you bet its trivial to change Owl not to need them - can you
>>  >propose specific text for the change?
>>  Wherever any part of the OWL-XX syntactic conditions currently
>>  mention triples of the form
>>  xxx rdf:type rdf:List
>>  that reference is modified to refer to triples of the form
>>  xxx rdf:first yyy
>>  or
>>  zzz rdf:rest xxx
>>  or
>>  xxx rdf:rest zzz
>>  which could all be called 'list triples of xxx' or some such phrase.
>>  A minor edit to the text, no significant change to any actual
>>  conditions.
>What about the name separation stuff?
>"the ontologies in O, taken together, provide a type for every
>individual ID;"
>  -- Web Ontology Language (OWL) Abstract Syntax and Semantics
>Section 4. Mapping to RDF Graphs
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html#4.1

Well, if I follow this right, rdf:List is in the RDF disallowed 
vocabulary, so any vocabulary which asserts anything to be of that 
type would not be a separated vocabulary in any case, since it would 
be using disallowed vocabulary as a class ID; and the same would 
apply with the suggested modification since both rdf:first and 
rdf:rest are also disallowed and hence cannot be property IDs. Either 
way, lists had better not be mentioned in the ontologies in O.

IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:00:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC