W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2003

Re: rdf:List

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 09:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030505.094306.80378827.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: rdf:List
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 23:08:26 +0300

> The RDF Core group is discussing a late last call comment from a developer 
> which proposes that triples of the form
> _:x rdf:type rdf:List .
> should not be produced by the
>   rdf:parseType="Collection"
> construct, but that it should only produce rdf:first and rdf:rest triples. 
> [1][2]
> I and Dave Beckett have opposed, on the grounds this construct was put in for 
> OWL, (based on daml:collection) and this is what webont asked for.
> Peter, at my invitation, has indicated he would oppose this change. [3]
> However, RDF Core is deadlocked, so I have indicated that I am willing to 
> shift my oppose to an abstain if I do not get strong support from WebOnt 
> before the next RDF Core meeting (Friday 9th).
> Comments?

The reason that I'm opposed to the change is that it would mean that these
nodes would not have typing information associated with them.  The
requirement for typing information for all nodes in OWL DL came from you, I
believe.  If you think that typing information is not required for list
nodes, then why did you agitate for this requirement?

> Jeremy
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#timbl-03
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0586.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0273.html

Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 09:43:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC