- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:56:11 +0100
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I've been catching up on the daml:collection discussion. Thank you DanC for http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0334.html I don't follow the reasons for: [[* add a 'highest index' property to bags: it tells you the highest index that's used to relate a collection to one of its members. This is only slightly better than a "count" property, to my mind. ]] You reject the count property on the grounds of arithmetic and comparison. RDF must already have the concept of equality of properties and ordering of the ordinal properties. I don't see that this proposal requires any more than that. It seems to me, that if we are closing RDF's current containers, then this is the front running option. I'm a wee bit nervous that it introduces something close to negation by the back door though. Pat? The alternative is that the owl folks use daml collection. They can do that without any help from us, just as the daml folks did. Daml was quite happy to define daml:collection as an extension to RDF. All that is needed is a preprocessor to turn it into legal RDF. Such a preprocessor may be built into an RDF parser, but that is an implementation matter. Between these two choices, should we ask the customer which they prefer? Brian
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:26:41 UTC