- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 20 Mar 2002 22:28:14 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[-cc webont; I presume Brian didn't mean to crosspost] On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 09:13, Brian McBride wrote: > At 13:40 20/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >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. > > If we are to consider daml:collection as a use case, I have a dumb > question. Why does it exist? Is the lack of closure on rdf containers the > only reason, Pretty much. And the ugliness of <rdf:li>. Oh... but more substantively: the hassle of dealing with an infinite number of rdf:_1 rdf:_2 things. And the long history of dealing with lists inductively, i.e. as first/rest pairs. > i.e. if we fixed that, would the need for daml:collection go away? I think so. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 23:28:46 UTC