- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:58:44 +0330
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Reading the message (below) that DanBri forwarded to rdf-comments >brought to mind two questions: > >1. Is there some background/conceptual discussion of RDF lists that >would be usefully addressed in the Concepts document? > >2. In discussing the semantics of lists, I understand Pat's proposed >semantics to assume the existence of *all* possible lists. Which >leads me to suspect undesired entailments; e.g. > > my:List my:threeFavouriteThings _:x . > _:x rdf:first "mostFavourite" . > _:x rdf:rest _:x2 . > _:x2 rdf:first "nextFavourite" . > _:x2 rdf:rest _:x3 . > _:x3 rdf:first "thirdFavourite" . > _:x3 rdf:rest rdf:nil . > >entails: > > my:List my:threeFavouriteThings _:y . > _:y rdf:first "mostFavourite" . > _:y rdf:rest _:y2 . > _:y2 rdf:first "thirdFavourite" . > _:y2 rdf:rest _:y3 . > _:y3 rdf:first "nextFavourite" . > _:y3 rdf:rest rdf:nil . No, the entailment would only be to the *existence* of that reordered list. But the two lists are still distinct, so one of them being yourFavoriteThings doesn't entail that the other must be. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 10:27:59 UTC