W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

ACTION 20030425#4 [was Re: timbl-03]

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:20:27 -0400
Message-ID: <3EAFCD9B.5000900@mitre.org>
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
CC: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

I had an action

  ACTION 20030425#4 frank figure out the cost to PRIMER of accepting timbl-03

The way the Primer is currently written, readers would probably conclude 
that the graph generated from a parseType Collection would necessarily 
include the "redundant" rdf:type triples Tim objects to, and it wouldn't 
be clear that they could be omitted (e.g., if someone were to write 
RDF/XML to describe the triples directly, rather than using parseType 
Collection.  So some additional explanation would be required, but I 
don't think it would be extensive or complicated.

However, one thing I'd need some clarification on (in writing that 
explanation) is whether it is true, as Tim suggested in his original 
comment, that

"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 }."

Or rather, whether this is true *in RDF* (as opposed to in OWL).  The 
point is that, as I read the Semantics document, the only semantic 
condition imposed on the collection vocabulary is that the type of 
rdf:nil must be rdf:List.  This, of course, doesn't apply to the subject 
of an rdf:first, so the inference Tim wants drawn would seem to be a 
semantic extension which might be true for OWL, but not necessarily for 
RDF per se.  It seems to me the explanation would have to cover this 
point in some way.


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 08:59:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC