- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:19:59 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
OWL is heavily using the new RDF collection syntax. Thanks for adding it.
However, there are a few places where it would be useful to have
collections, but where the collection syntax is not allowed.
The first case has to do with literals in collections. I believe that it
is not possible to have literals in the collection syntax, so that
<owl:Class>
<owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
1
2
3
</owl:oneOf>
</owl:Class>
is not legal RDF/XML. (Typed literals are also not possible.)
The second case has to do with making a collection directly an instance of
a class. For example, it would be useful to do something like
<owl:AllDistinct rdf:parseType="Collection">
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#John" />
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Mary" />
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Susan" />
<owl:Thing rdf:about="#Joe" />
</owl:AllDistinct>
This is not an official request to do anything, but these issues should not
be forgotten if there is any future work on RDF.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 11:20:09 UTC