- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 13:48:39 -0700
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 12:12 PM 8/30/01 -0700, pat hayes wrote: >>I understand that, but that still leaves open the issue that I was >>raising, which is: given that it doesn't have the properties >>contiguous, what does that entail? Are the 'missing' elements >>really there (but not mentioned), or are they genuinely not there? >>So in my example, if >>xxx rdf:_1 aaa >>xxx rdf:_3 ccc >>does xxx have two, or at least three, members? > >Can the formalism be agnostic about this? Yes, it could. I asked the question in case people wanted to have the question answered one way or the other. >i.e. that the member corresponding to rdf:_2 may or may not exist, >and if it does exist its value is not stated by the above. In the >absence of an rdf:lastThing or equivalent, the same being true for >any value of rdf:_n not explicitly stated. Right. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 16:47:26 UTC