W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night.

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:32:47 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101520b8d25927b2eb@[]>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Original posting to RDF Core, this message also to Webont.
>As I understand it, the minimal unasserted triple proposal is that at least
>for daml:collection it would have been better if the triples with properties
>daml:first and daml:rest (and maybe those ending rdf:type daml:List ), were
>somehow special.

Special in a special way: they do not make any assertions of 
propositions in the RDF MT. Of course they can be used by DAML to 
make DAML assertions.

>There is an intended syntactic restriction on these triples i.e. that each
>cell in a daml:collection has:
>- rdf:type daml:List (and no other)
>- exactly one daml:first property (pointing to a resource)
>- exactly one daml:rest property ( pointing to daml:nil or another cell )
>- no other properties.
>At least some of these restrictions could be described with Daml+Oil.

True, but orthogonal to the point.

>approach is not compatible with unasserted triples.

?? Why not? I fail to follow your reasoning here. The idea was not 
that dark triples are invisible to DAML, only that they make no RDF 

>Alternatively we need another language (maybe english) to describe these

I would prefer to do that, myself, since they are essentially part of 
the DAML *syntax* requirements. It is usually rather tricky to have 
an assertional language which is able to describe its own syntax, and 
I don't see any real utility for this ability (unless maybe it is 
truly general-purpose and so can be used as a kind of universal 
syntax specification, as in KIF; but that goes way beyond what would 
be possible in DAML.)

>My point being that using dark triples to construct purely syntactic
>substructures within RDF graphs then begs the question of how to describe
>the syntax of those syntactic substructures.

Well, it doesn't address that question, but then it doesn't address a 
whole lot of other questions either. It wasn't aimed at that issue. I 
don't think it would interfere with any proposals along that 
direction, however.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 14:32:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:11 UTC