- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:00:21 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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