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

LANG: collections

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:36:46 -0500
Message-ID: <006a01c1ce14$fd0add60$0301a8c0@ne.client2.attbi.com>
To: "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
It is acknowledged that we need a proper set of collections. In
contradistinction to the RDF collections "Alt" "Seq" and "Bag", I suggest
that the semantics of whether a daml:List is being used as a list or as a
set, be a function of the _property_ that uses the daml:List i.e. the
property to which the rdf:parseType="daml:collection" is attached (DAML+OIL
actually already does this, and I just want to make this more explicit).

I've written a short ont that describes a small set of collection
_properties_ that is properties to which the "daml:collection" parse type
are to be applied.

http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/collections.ont

These properties are derive from "listProperty" whose rdfs:range is
restricted to daml:List

I suggest the property "ont:sequence" be made available as a list of ordered
items.

The subProperty "setProperty" interprets the daml:List as a set.

Properties such as "oneOf", "intersection" etc. derive from "setProperty"
and thus inherit the semantics of 'containing' a set of items.

Since a variety of properties already have this semantics e.g. daml:oneOf(a
b c) = daml:oneOf(c b a), having a common "setProperty" should add no
complexity to OWL beyond what already exists in DAML+OIL. Similarly one can
already restrict a properties rdfs:range to daml:List, so adding the
convenient "ont:sequence" property adds no complexity to the language.

Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 18:56:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT