W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Clarifications needed for the Collection construct

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:30:56 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b0abaca1b01e7a8@[10.0.100.12]>
To: tolle@dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Dear Karsten'

re. your comment at

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html

The general point you make here can, I think, be summed up by saying 
that RDF does not impose any well-formedness conditions on its 
collection vocabulary, so that it is possible to write RDF graphs 
which make no 'sense' relative to the indicated intended 
interpretation of the collection vocabulary.  This is correct, as RDF 
provides no syntactic constraints of this kind.

You also ask about the reason for introducing the collection 
vocabulary. The collection vocabulary was requested by the DAML joint 
committee and the Webont WG. The difference between the collection 
and container vocabularies lies in the fact that it is possible to 
write an RDF graph which entails that the number of things in a 
collection  has an upper bound, while it is not possible to do that 
with the container vocabulary.

We have not made any changes to the document as a result of your 
comment.  Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org 
indicating whether this decision is acceptable.

Pat Hayes
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Monday, 21 April 2003 18:30:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT