- From: Ian Dickinson <ian.dickinson@hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:22:13 +0000
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Daniel Elenius wrote: >> * also in section 5.4, there seems to be no syntactic difference >> between ControlConstructBag and ControlConstructList, so why not just >> make one a sub-class of the other? > But there is a *semantic* difference, i.e. the bag should not be > interpreted as ordered. Yes, I understand that such is the intent. I was just pointing out that there's no semantic or syntactic difference at the RDF level. In OWL terms, the ccBag and ccList classes are co-extensional. Any semantic difference derives from an owl-s -aware processor being programmed to recognise those names and treat them specially. > Then again, it doesn't really hurt to have the two classes, I > think. Perhaps it simply suggests that some refactoring might be indicated. There are two needs: to encode sematically meaningful distinctions (like duplication or ordering) that *are* relevant to the interpretation of the language, and to encode data-structures using the low-level machinery of RDF. It may be that these are not as cleanly separated as would be nice in a specification document. Ian
Received on Saturday, 20 November 2004 10:22:51 UTC