Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary)

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2008, at 14:16, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Boris,
>>> I just want to flag an issue that may come up later in comments: on 
>>> practical sense your proposal has a downside for RDF users. Indeed, 
>>> the two major serializations formats, ie, RDF/XML and Turtle, have 
>>> syntactic shorthands for RDF Lists, and these would not be valid for 
>>> the owl version of those.
>> Actually, to be more precise: in RDF/XML there is a shorthand when 
>> rdf:next is an object property. When the list elements are literals, 
>> then the list has to be spelled out...
>> Turtle's shorthand works in all cases.
> Just out of curiosity, would you find it reasonable to reserve the rdf 
> vocab (in data) to object properties and just add an owl for 
> distinguishing data properties?

Hm. As an RDF/XML user, probably yes. As a turtle user, well, it would 
be suboptimal...

> (I'll note that we're in this pickle due to removing punning on object 
> and data properties :()

Yep.... :-(

Actually, Boris' mail did not refer to rdf:Seq/Bag/Alt and the 
corresponding rdf:_n properties. There might be users out there 
preferring those to Lists, in which case the same issue arises for 
rdf:_n. (But I am not sure at all whether we should are bout those)


> Cheers,
> Bijan.


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 13:31:21 UTC