- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:41:49 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 14:29, Pat Hayes wrote: >> >On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 17:35, Pat Hayes wrote: >> >> >[...] > >> >> >> Now this works perfectly well* when the oneOf claim >> >> >> is spelled out long-hand using first/rest/nil. >> >> >> >> [To Dan:] >> >> Well, that isn't clear. >> > >> >Sigh... I should have known better than to make that claim >> >without working out the details... >> > >> >> After all, it is RDF-legal to add some other >> >> rest/first/rest chains to the same bnodes, >> > >> >Well, first and rest are UniqueProperties. >> >> There isn't any such notion in RDF. > >Not yet; but I say, again: > >|So the next proposal is: >| >| * add parseType="collection" to RDF/xml; >| >| * add rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:nil too. >| >| * specify that parseType="collection" >| >| is notation for first/rest/nil triples >| ala daml:collection. > >By 'ala daml:collection' I meant: including >the fact that first/rest are functional. > Oh, I see. But then that is a much bigger change/extension to RDF than it seems, since now RDF has a way to encode functional properties. That goes beyond just adding a different kind of container. I would like to explore what the other implications of that might be. 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 Tuesday, 23 April 2002 20:11:05 UTC