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

My memory may be failing me, but didn't we already decide to
accept this comment and not require generation of the impliable
triple?

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 24 April, 2003 14:14
> To: Dave Beckett
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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/2003JanMa
> r/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/2003JanMa
> r/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 07:20:29 UTC