- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:13:30 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 01:08 AM 9/27/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote: >>I think that even though they may be different lists (containing >>different graph nodes), if IR is closed under list construction and the >>given semantics for rdf:first, rdf:rest then each must entail the other >>-- by virtue always being true. > >Ah, yes. The existence of one such list suffices for both graphs, if you >always use bnodes. But you know, you don't HAVE to use bnodes. Maybe > >ex:Pat rdf:first :a . > >for all I know. Well, yes. That's a structure I find myself using quite a lot (effectively, indicating a list by identifying its head node). Isn't that just a particular case of relating a list to another entity? ... >>Tricker, I think, is how one gets the expected entailments when a list is >>related to some other entity -- I guess the OWL folks will have to sort >>that one. > >Damn right. Speaking as one of them, that's one of the reasons I want to >do RDF lists this way. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 12:24:56 UTC