- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 07 May 2003 15:02:57 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 13:00, pat hayes wrote: > >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, Gee, if you're not, then we're in bad shape; you're an editor on that thing... > 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. Help?!??! I'm losing my marbles. I think I need a test case to look at. > Pat -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 16:05:07 UTC