- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:32:47 -0600
- 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. >That >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 assertions. >Alternatively we need another language (maybe english) to describe these >restrictions. 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. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 14:32:47 UTC