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

RE: parseType=Collection and rdf:List

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>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCEGBCEAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> >
> > 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
(my pref)

+ asking RDF Core to make this construct dark

+ aiming to only be a weak semantic extension of RDF


(I note that the latter has not addressed lists at all)
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 05:11:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:45 UTC