Re: What is it that's wrong with rdf:List [summary]

On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 17:05 +0200, Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 19 Jun 2010, at 16:47, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > Many thanks, everyone, for interesting and thoughtful explanations  
> > here.
> >
> > In summary, it seems that:
> >
> >  * rdf:List isn't fundamentally defective, but
> >  * it is often at least inconvenient to use with SPARQL, and
> >  * it collides with OWL, which has hijacked rdf:List for internal use.
> 
> We added rdf:List to rdf in the 2004 rdfcore revision, to address some  
> owl-related needs. So 'hijack' is a little unfair :)

I think the negativity and frustration of 'hijack' is valid, although
the implications aren't quite right.  rdf:List may have been motivated
in part for use by OWL 1, but as I recall it was put in the RDF
namespace because it was intended for general use.  I'm trying to think
of some replacement for hijack that suggests "shot itself in the foot".

How about:

   * it collides with OWL DL, which uses rdf:Lists internally but cannot
be used when other rdf:Lists are in use.

I think that puts the onus where it belongs, on OWL DL, instead of on
rdf:Lists.

     -- Sandro

Received on Saturday, 19 June 2010 16:16:44 UTC