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) Ivan > Cheers, > Bijan. -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdfReceived on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 13:31:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:48 UTC