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

RE: SEM: 5.5 List semantics

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:47:11 +0100
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDMEJCCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> Aha!  Here is my point of divergence.  Where does the RDF spec
> prohibit such
> conditions in the OWL model theory?  The OWL model theory imposes extra
> meaning on lots of the RDF namespace, including rdf:type, rdfs:Class, and
> rdf:Property.  Is this illegal?  If so, there is no way to provide an
> RDFS-compatible meaning for OWL.
>

I support Peter on this point; I believe DanC diverges and would prefer
owl:List.
I believe owl:List could also be made to work.

If we do decide to go this way it certainly should be communicated to RDF
Core as a consequence of their refusal to do list semantics


Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:47:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT