- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 02:16:03 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On May 28, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Michael Schneider wrote: [snip] > These syntax related uses of lists can IMO be clearly distinguished > from > custom usage. In particular, the currently applied method of a > "canonical > parsing process" in the reverse RDF mapping can first translate graphs > matching these forms into the respective functional syntax > expressions, and > then delete them from the source graph.Afterwards, all remaining > uses f > list vocabulary are regarded as custom use. This sort of punning has been done in Pellet for years. I believe I've proposed it a couple of times already :) [snip] > I, personally, would appreciate to be able to model things like > this... not > only in OWL Full. :-) Using rdf:list for modeling is, IMHO, always a mistake of some sort (after all, they are *not* lists in the standard sense since you don't have, e.g., transitive closure). Your example is a good example of what not to do (IMHO). However, this is pretty common. Better to discourage it by whinging than by fiat. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 30 May 2008 01:16:45 UTC