W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2004

Re: [OEP] Draft of a note on n-ary relations

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:42:03 -0500
To: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org, Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1084462922.32018.577.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 10:12, Alan Rector wrote:
[...]
> * I think CurriedFunctions are different and would prefer to avoid them in a simple primer

fair enough...


> * The argument list is a common programming trick - e.g. functions that deliver tuples -
> but I think distorts the spirit of either RDF or OWL.

Huh? Distorts the spirit?

It's quite straightforward and it works well.

>   For OWL it has the added
> disadvantage of moving immediately to OWL full

Really? I don't think so. Can you explain how the use of a list as
the subject of a property moves to OWL full?

>  and - I think - requiring a data type property to hold the list for
> what is otherwise semantically an object property. (If I am wrong on this, somebody
> please correct me.)

Maybe I'll check with a tool or something.

>   It also leaves the semantics of the different arguments implicit whereas any
> of the other mechanisms make them more explicit.

More explicit? I don't understand what you mean by that.

> I wouldn't oppose including it, but I would want those  'health warnings' attached.

I don't see how using lists puts anybodys health at risk. ;-)

Please do include it.


[...]

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 15-21 May?
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2004 11:42:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:44 GMT