RE: timbl-03 collection clutter

>On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 10:40, pat hayes wrote:
>[...]
>>  >PatH - you bet its trivial to change Owl not to need them - can you
>>  >propose specific text for the change?
>>
>>  Wherever any part of the OWL-XX syntactic conditions currently
>>  mention triples of the form
>>
>>  xxx rdf:type rdf:List
>>
>>  that reference is modified to refer to triples of the form
>>
>>  xxx rdf:first yyy
>>  or
>>  zzz rdf:rest xxx
>>  or
>>  xxx rdf:rest zzz
>>
>>  which could all be called 'list triples of xxx' or some such phrase.
>>  A minor edit to the text, no significant change to any actual
>>  conditions.
>
>What about the name separation stuff?
>
>"the ontologies in O, taken together, provide a type for every
>individual ID;"
>  -- Web Ontology Language (OWL) Abstract Syntax and Semantics
>Section 4. Mapping to RDF Graphs
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html#4.1
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/mapping.html#4.1
>

Well, if I follow this right, rdf:List is in the RDF disallowed 
vocabulary, so any vocabulary which asserts anything to be of that 
type would not be a separated vocabulary in any case, since it would 
be using disallowed vocabulary as a class ID; and the same would 
apply with the suggested modification since both rdf:first and 
rdf:rest are also disallowed and hence cannot be property IDs. Either 
way, lists had better not be mentioned in the ontologies in O.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:00:28 UTC