- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:30:56 -0500
- To: tolle@dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Dear Karsten' re. your comment at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html The general point you make here can, I think, be summed up by saying that RDF does not impose any well-formedness conditions on its collection vocabulary, so that it is possible to write RDF graphs which make no 'sense' relative to the indicated intended interpretation of the collection vocabulary. This is correct, as RDF provides no syntactic constraints of this kind. You also ask about the reason for introducing the collection vocabulary. The collection vocabulary was requested by the DAML joint committee and the Webont WG. The difference between the collection and container vocabularies lies in the fact that it is possible to write an RDF graph which entails that the number of things in a collection has an upper bound, while it is not possible to do that with the container vocabulary. We have not made any changes to the document as a result of your comment. Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating whether this decision is acceptable. Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Monday, 21 April 2003 18:30:59 UTC