W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2001

Re: DAML+OIL and the nested element conundrum

From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:56:19 -0700
Message-Id: <200111210456.fAL4uJK19862@localhost.localdomain>
To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> [Uche Ogbuji]
> 
> > The DAML+OIL reference, as an illustration of the representation of lists
> as
> > cons pairs, uses the following RDF snippet:
> >
> > <List>
> >  <first>
> >   <Thing rdf:resource="#red">
> >  </first>
> >  <rest>
> >   <List>
> >    <first>
> >     <Thing rdf:resource="#white">
> > [...]
> >
> > The first bit of bad news is that this is not well formed XML.
> >
> > But even once amended, it probably doesn't mean what the DAML authors
> think it
> > might.  It seems to me that the following makes more sense:
> >
> > <List>
> >  <first>
> >   <Thing rdf:about="#red">
> >  </first>
> >  <rest>
> >   <List>
> >    <first>
> >     <Thing rdf:about="#white">
> > [...]
> 
> Anyway, how are we supposed to know what a "List","first", or "rest" is
> without some rdf: or DAML: namespace to tell us?  Or is the processor
> supposed to infer that anything with this structure is intended to be a list
> regardless of the element names?

At least you can go to the DAML spec itself and find the schema for List, 
first, rest, etc.  (that, for instance, is how I completed the rdf:RDF wrapper 
I fed to 4RDF).

But I do agree that there should be some ref to this schems in the 
daml:collection discussion.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 00:36:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT