RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night.

• From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:13:36 +0000
• To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
• Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020320151132.02d82750@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>

At 13:40 20/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Original posting to RDF Core, this message also to Webont.
>
>As I understand it, the minimal unasserted triple proposal is that at least
>for daml:collection it would have been better if the triples with properties
>daml:first and daml:rest (and maybe those ending rdf:type daml:List ), were
>somehow special.

If we are to consider daml:collection as a use case, I have a dumb 
question.  Why does it exist?  Is the lack of closure on rdf containers the 
only reason, i.e. if we fixed that, would the need for daml:collection go away?

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 10:15:49 UTC