- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:02:53 +0000
- To: Ian MacLarty <iml@missioncriticalit.com>
- Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
On Feb 19, 2007, at 6:33 AM, Ian MacLarty wrote:
[snip]
> This is problematic, because it means that rdf:nil is in the class
> Atom,
> because of the allValuesFrom restriction on rdf:first for AtomList.
> The SWRL spec doesn't say what the meaning of the rdf:nil atom is
> (the meaning of the rdf:nil AtomList is clear, but not the meaning
> of the
> rdf:nil Atom).
>
> More generally this is a bad way to define lists, since for any class
> you define a list of in this way, you end up adding rdf:nil to the
> class. This means you couldn't define lists for two disjoint classes
> using this approach, since then both classes would contain rdf:nil and
> violate the disjointWith constraint.
You could always add an atomNil for the car, but yeah, sorta sucks.
You could make the value of the allValues Atom or {nil}. But then you
are back to changing the file.
(Just for the record, I still think it's pointless to get hung up on
this bit. :) That is an OWL file describing SWRL syntax is an
inherently silly thing.)
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 11:03:04 UTC