- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:45:54 -0700
- 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: <rdf:Description> <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Collection"> <rdf:Description owl:sameAs="one"/> <rdf:Description owl:sameAs="two"/> <rdf:Description owl:sameAs="three"/> </eg:prop> </rdf:Description> 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: <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#value"> <owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description> <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Collection"> <rdf:Description rdf:value="one"/> <rdf:Description rdf:value="two"/> <rdf:Description rdf:value="three"/> </eg:prop> </rdf:Description> :) But why, why, why? I'll stop before this turns into a rant. ;) Garret
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 16:57:13 UTC