> > > As a way to alleviate the issue, and also have better matching between OA > > and RDF, I'd suggest the following "bridging" axioms: > > rdf:first rdfs:subPropertyOf oa:item . > > oa:item owl:propertyChainAxiom ( rdf:rest oa:item ) . > > It think this would provide a sound basis on which the oa:item statements > > from Fig 4.3 could be derived. > > [...] > > While a great idea, I'm not sure that we can make assertions like this > about rdf:first? > > My preference, especially at this stage, would be to leave it alone > and add an editors note that ordering in RDF is inherently problematic > and future specifications may require changes to the mapping. This > would also give an opportunity to explain why we introduce the classes > rather than just using Alt, Bag and List directly. > > +1 Paolo
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 17:03:50 UTC