- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 06:47:57 -0400
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
* Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> [2003-04-24 11:22+0100] > >>>Dan Brickley said: > > I thought TimBL's point was that the 'this is a List' statements could > > be inferred through knowledge of the rdfs:domain of rdf:first and > > rdf:rest. Anything familiar with the meaning of these rdf properties > > will know that they can be truly applied only to lists. In that light, > > forcing parsers to emit this data explicitly is indeed rather redundant. > > That was just one of the points, the owl semantics / lemmas / proofs > use rdf:List. I can't say throw it out since I don't understand if > they are required. My argument stands until somebody who does tells > me that they are required/not required for these purposes too. The OWL specs reference rdf:List, but they don't care how one learns about these Lists, ie. whether an RDF/XML parser tells you directly versus whether they are inferred from the semantics of rdf:first and rdf:rest. Could a member of the WebOnt WG confirm this? It's not like we're considering the removal of rdf:List from the langauge, we're just considering the removal of a requirement on RDF parsers to emit a claim that all RDF-based inference systems could figure out anyways. Dan
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 06:48:03 UTC