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

Issue 5.5 lists

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:07:42 -0000
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ENEKKODIOPDFKPGAOLNIGEBGCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


The newly published RDF Semantics has stuff to say e.g.:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20021112/#collections


[
As this example shows, it is also possible to write a set of triples which
underspecify a collection by failing to specify its rdf:rest property value.

Semantic extensions MAY place extra syntactic well-formedness restrictions
on the use of this vocabulary in order to rule out such graphs, and MAY
exclude interpretations of the collection vocabulary which violate the
convention that the subject of a 'linked' collection of three-triple items
of the form described above, ending with an item ending with rdf:nil,
denotes a totally ordered sequence whose members are the denotations of the
rdf:first values of the items, in the order got by tracing the rdf:rest
properties from the subject to rdf:nil. This permits sequences which contain
other sequences.
]

i.e. it is intended to set up the framework in which RDF does not actually
give the expected meaning of rdf:List, but that OWL may insist on that
meaning.

Since the rdf:parseType="Collection" syntax seemed to meet our needs, all we
need to consider is whether the semantics, and the notion of semantic
extension, suffice.
(I haven't yet got round to reading the OWL Semantics .... )

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 16:04:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT