W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2002

Re: DAML: restricting number of elements in a list

From: Steven Gollery <sgollery@cadrc.calpoly.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:37:04 -0800
Message-ID: <3C681D60.412485DE@cadrc.calpoly.edu>
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>
> Ian,
>
> It seems to me that the concept of "order" is fundamental in describing
> elements of many ontologies. Why was the decision made not to include this in
> DAML?
>
> Steven Gollery
>

Obviously, this is an overstatement. It is perfectly possible to define the equivalent of a
linked list, as DAML-S does in its "nextProcessComponent" property, which provides a notion
of "order". What I was really wondering here is: why was the decision made that a daml:list
would be unordered?

Steven Gollery

>
> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>
> > On February 6, Steven Gollery writes:
> > > I'm working on an ontology in DAML that includes some geometric
> > > concepts. I would like to be able to somehow define a property Vertices
> > > whose domain is the Polygon class and whose range is ordered collections
> > > of instances of the Point class, where the length of the ordered
> > > collection is at least three.
> > >
> > > It would be fairly straightforward to say that each Polygon must have at
> > > least three values of a Vertex property which is restricted to class
> > > Point, but that would lose the idea the vertices have an order -- the
> > > order is obviously a fundamental part of the semantics for the polygon.
> > >
> > > Does DAML provide any way to restrict the number of elements in a list?
> > > Or is there some other way to do what I need here?
> >
> > There is no language construct that supports this - properties of a
> > DAML class are always unordered. One possible solution is to make the
> > range of Vertex a more complex structure that describes both the point
> > and its place in the list. This is not completely satisfactory as it
> > is difficult to ensure that the list values are sensibly ordered.
> >
> > Another solution is to define subproperties of Vertex called Vertex1,
> > Vertex2 etc., each being a unique property (i.e., functional). The
> > main disadvantage with this method is that the maximum number of
> > vertices must be decided a priori. Ensuring that values are sensibly
> > ordered is a little easier in this case because the functionality
> > already precludes the case where there is more than one vertex with
> > the same number. Simply asserting, for each n from 2 to the max vertex
> > number, that the existence of the property Vertexn implies the
> > existence of the property Vertexn-1 should be enough to ensure that
> > there are no "gaps" in the list of vertices.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Ian Horrocks
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > Steve Gollery
> > > sgollery@cadrc.calpoly.edu
> > >
> > >
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    * Previous message: Ian Horrocks: "Re: DAML: restricting number of elements in a list"
>    * In reply to: Ian Horrocks: "Re: DAML: restricting number of elements in a list"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 16:40:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT