- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:49:42 +0000
- To: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>
- CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Evren Sirin wrote: > > Some time ago there was a discussion regarding the need (or lack there > of) punning the same URI for both as an object and a data property. > Another use case for this is representing arbitrary lists in the > instance data. ... >In > addition, if punning built-in vocabulary (or at least rdf:List > vocabuary) is allowed it would not be necessary to reinvent a new > namespace. Sorry I missed this when it was written, was drawn to it, by the OWL Dev message. This is a reasonable use case. It is a pain on OWL 1.0 DL that you cannot use the built-in collection vocab. On the other hand it is a pain only for objects rather than literals, since the rdf:parseType="Collection" syntax does not work for literals. So, I don't think it is a huge loss to allow rdf:first and rdf:rest vocab via punning in OWL 1.1 DL as ObjectProperties, and to still require 'shadow' vocab for user collections of literals. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 24 December 2007 09:50:13 UTC