- 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