Re: Issue timbl-03 "collection clutter" proposal to close

Support.


Dave Beckett wrote:

> Summary: reject
> 
> The comment raised in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0586.html
> 
> [[
>   I believe that in 7.2.19 Production parseTypeCollectionPropertyElt
>     the wording
> 
>   """For each event nin s, the following statement is added to the graph:
> 
>   n.string-value <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
>   <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#List> .
> 
> 
>   """
> 
>   adds redundant triples to the graph.
>   I believe that waste of time and space at this level in the 
>   architecture is unnecessary, and that that wording should be removed 
>   (and any other reference to the adding type statements for Lists where 
>   a rdf:first is there).
> 
>   It is trivial to restore the triples for anyone who wants them fro a 
>   graph without them,
>   using
> { ?x rdf:first ?y } =>  { ?x  a rdf:List }.
> ]]
> 
> 
> Here is a draft response:
> 
> [[
> The RDF Core WG has considered your last call comment captured in
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#timbl-03
> 
> (raised in
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0586.html
> )
> 
> and decided
> 
>    URL-HERE
> 
> to reject it on the grounds that it is being used by OWL and could
> not be added at a higher level since it is closedly tied to an
> RDf/XML syntax abbreviation.
> 
> This triple is part of the closed collection form added to the RDF
> model and RDF/XML syntax for use by OWL based on the DAML+OIL
> daml:Collection syntax extension to RDF/XML. 
> 
> The reason this could not be added at the OWL level is that it is
> generated by the rdf:parseType="Collection" syntax which is in the
> RDF/XML specification.  There is no "hook" to allow optional adding
> of <x> rdf:type rdf:List for the generated notes.
> 
> rdf:List is refered to in several places throughtout the proposed OWL
> language and seems to have good uses:
> 
> 
> Example of using rdf:List explicitly for collection of datatyped literals
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/#EnumeratedDatatype
> 
> As the range of these three properties:
>   owl:distinctMembers
>   owl:intersectionOf
>   owl:oneOf
>   owl:unionOf
> 
> See the RDF Schema of OWL http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/#appB
> 
> typically used in the examples with rdf:parseType="Collection" form:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#EnumeratedClasses
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DisjointClasses
> 
> 
> Used in OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax WD, 31 March 2003
> 
>   Translation to RDF Graphs
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/semantics-all.html#4.1
> 
>   5 RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
>     5.2. OWL Interpretations
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/semantics-all.html#rdf_List_rdf
> 
>     if E is             then                          Note
>              SI(E)..  CEXTI(SI(E))=   and
> 
>     rdf:List            IL           IL subsetof RI  This defines IL as
>                                                      the set of OWL lists. 
> 
> So it is needed to define OWL lists.
> 
> 
>   A.1 Correspondence for Descriptions (Informative)
>     Used in the proof for Lemmas 1, 4
> 
>   A.2 Correspondence between OWL DL and OWL Full (Informative)
>     Used in the proof-sketch for Lemma 5
> 
> ]]
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 07:13:54 UTC