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

Re: more feedback (re-open #rdfms-seq-representation?)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 Nov 2002 00:10:19 -0600
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1036131020.9228.2518.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 23:46, pat hayes wrote:
> Just how minimal do we want the list semantics to be?

I honestly don't know.

I think there is some "XML stuff" that you don't
yet appreciate/understand, and I'm pretty sure
I don't understand your picture of how WebOnt
layers on RDF lists.

> In particular, 
> is this satisfiable? :
> 7.
> rdf:nil rdf:rest _:xxx .
> ? Or can I rule that out?

Rule it out where? Are you messing around with
the definitoin of simple-entialment? Or
the defintion of RDF interpretation?

Hm... how would we express that as a test case?
as a reductio-ad-absurdum? i.e.

	rdf:nil rdf:rest _:xxx
	:pigs :can :fly.

> If not, our claim that lists are bounded 
> seems rather hollow, and that was the point of having them in the 
> first place.....

Yes, I think we ought to reopen

The new information is: the 31May decision record
wasn't clear enough to distinguish between positions
that Pat/Dan/Jeremy/Graham would support and positions
they wouldn't. Each of us thought we agreed at the time,
but we discover now (especially when integrating
this decision with WebOnt, a critical customer)
that we didn't.

For me, it was a borderline decision to add
parseType="Collection" to RDF at all... not one that
I would want to go with over anybody's objection.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 01:09:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC