- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:42:03 -0500
- To: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org, Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 10:12, Alan Rector wrote: [...] > * I think CurriedFunctions are different and would prefer to avoid them in a simple primer fair enough... > * The argument list is a common programming trick - e.g. functions that deliver tuples - > but I think distorts the spirit of either RDF or OWL. Huh? Distorts the spirit? It's quite straightforward and it works well. > For OWL it has the added > disadvantage of moving immediately to OWL full Really? I don't think so. Can you explain how the use of a list as the subject of a property moves to OWL full? > and - I think - requiring a data type property to hold the list for > what is otherwise semantically an object property. (If I am wrong on this, somebody > please correct me.) Maybe I'll check with a tool or something. > It also leaves the semantics of the different arguments implicit whereas any > of the other mechanisms make them more explicit. More explicit? I don't understand what you mean by that. > I wouldn't oppose including it, but I would want those 'health warnings' attached. I don't see how using lists puts anybodys health at risk. ;-) Please do include it. [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 15-21 May?
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2004 11:42:09 UTC