W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: literals in lists.

From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:45:54 -0700
Message-ID: <46A77E42.60209@globalmentor.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

Garret Wilson wrote:
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> To be clear, an rdf:List can have literals, it's just that
>> parseType=Collection cannot be used with such lists.
>> I'm curious why you prefer rdf:value for this workaround instead of
>> owl:sameAs....      

Jeremy's (private) email to me probably contains what Sandro was meaning:

   <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Collection">
      <rdf:Description owl:sameAs="one"/>
      <rdf:Description owl:sameAs="two"/>
      <rdf:Description owl:sameAs="three"/>

Unfortunately, this assumes that the RDF processor is an inference 
engine that supports OWL---and provides spurious properties not present 
if I were to put literals in a full-syntax rdf:List. (On the other hand, 
rdf:value has no set semantics at all---it's not even a hack, but more 
like a hack builder.)

Once I assume an inference engine that understands OWL, I might as well 
do this:

  <owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs"/>

   <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Collection">
      <rdf:Description rdf:value="one"/>
      <rdf:Description rdf:value="two"/>
      <rdf:Description rdf:value="three"/>


But why, why, why?

I'll stop before this turns into a rant. ;)

Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 16:57:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:05 UTC