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

Re: Comments on informal meaning of the RDFS vocabulary

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:08:44 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130160148.0cf3abb8@localhost>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 10:39 30/01/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

> > Might your concern be addressed if the text were modified to include a
> > discussion of well formed and not well formed lists.  I'd probably need
> > some help with the wording, but something along the lines of:
> >
> > [[
> > A rdf:List is well formed if it meets either of the following conditions:
> >
> >    o it is rdf:nil
> >    o - it has exactly one rdf:first property,
> >      - and it has one rdf:rest property
> >      - and the value of its rdf:rest property is a well formed list.
>
>This is not sufficient to describe well-formed lists!  (Think of infinite
>or circular lists.  Also think of what happens if rdf:nil is the subject of
>a triple whose predicate is rdf:first or rdf:rest.)

Just so.

Right, I think we've got the point where we have clarified what the issue 
is, but we are probably going to have to think a little more about how best 
to address it.

Summary:

The RDF Schema document

   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab

describes lists as though they were always "well formed", which they are not.

I've recorded this as issue:

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-12


Brian
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 12:09:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT