W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

construct for closed lists [Was: AGENDA: April 11 telecon]

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:59:30 +0200
To: "Guus Schreiber <schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Cc: "WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF07ADF7E3.03D7FCE4-ONC1256B98.0054D53D@agfa.be>

[some debrief w.r.t. construct for closed lists]

> ACTION (Mar 28) DanC, Lynn Stein (prov.), Jos De Roo, to participate
>    in RDF core discussions on construct for closed lists

there are a couple of directions w.r.t. RDF M&S containers
the discussion/decision however is still going on...

from PatH:
   The RDF core WG respectfully suggests to the WEBONT WG that it
   adopt the following CONVENTION: that for purposes of WEBONT, a
   particular individual be chosen to be the end-of-syntactic-container
   entity, by analogy with NIL in LISP; and that for WEBONT purposes,
   any RDF container used for syntactic encoding of WEBONT expressions
   (or for whatever other purposes that WEBONT shall, in its total
   discretion, decree to be of utility to itself) shall be understood to
   contain only those elements which are lower, in the RDF ordering
   defined by the numerical indices of the RDF container properties,
   than the index of the lowest-numbered occurrence of said particular
   -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0063.html

from JosD:
   well, I now think there is no problem...
   at least not in the case that the container is a bNode
   in one document one can add as many elements as one wants
   but another document can never add to that bNode
   (that's why we have bNodes and relabeling)
   so the end is *within* the document
   rdf:Seq and rdf:li are a kind of iterative notation
   whereas owl:first, owl:rest and owl:nil are recursive
   and I still think the latter is a better way to deal
   with lists, at least that's what I found in
   -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0072.html

from JeremyC:
   In short, I think the end marker is not a good idea, because it is
   making the current mess of containers even messier (I don't really
   provide arguments for this yet).
   The specific suggestion I make is that closed bags should be indicated
   with a size property taking a string value understood as an xsd:integer.
   I attach what I think is a clean model of containers. Either we should
   put it in the model theory, as a clarification of M&S (which I genuinely
   think it is - it is *only* model theoretic, not a change to the graph)
   or we should at least make whatever changes we are going to make to
   satisfy the closed container requirement from WebOnt in light of this
   -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0095.html

Jos De Roo
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 12:00:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC