- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:08:59 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: <mdean@bbn.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > > > A while ago RDFCore proposed those to be > > rdf:List > > rdf:first > > rdf:rest > > rdf:nil > > where @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . > > That was in message > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0003.html > > > > -- , > > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > > It would be useful if the RDF Syntax working draft was updated to completely > reflect this decision. As of now, only about half of the necessary changes > are in there. I also don't believe that the necessary changes have been > made to the RDF MT document. > > Perhaps this would be a good point to include in this week's telecon, as it > sure would be nice to be able to remove the section on collections from the > reference description and instead point to RDF Core WG documents, even if > only drafts. > > peter > > A further complication is, IIRC, that the RDF Core are: + only defining syntactic rules for RDF/XML to triples In particular: + rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest etc. are in the domain of discourse + there is no unicity constraint Hence, we may wish to define the unicity constraints for OWL; and we need to consider how to address the domain of discourse issue. Options include: + agreeing to go with Dan's model theory in which the lists are in the domain of discourse [1] (my pref) + asking RDF Core to make this construct dark + aiming to only be a weak semantic extension of RDF [2] Jeremy [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0264.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0152.html (I note that the latter has not addressed lists at all) [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0101.html
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 05:11:29 UTC