Re: parseType collection

>>>"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" said:
> 
> 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.)

True, that is not legal, but you can always write out it in long-form
(tiresome but possible):

----------------------------------------------------------------------
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
  <owl:Class>
    <owl:oneOf rdf:nodeID="genid1"/>
  </owl:Class>

  <rdf:List rdf:nodeID="genid1">
    <rdf:first>1</rdf:first>
    <rdf:rest rdf:nodeID="genid2"/>
  </rdf:List>

  <rdf:List rdf:nodeID="genid2">
    <rdf:first>2</rdf:first>
    <rdf:rest rdf:nodeID="genid3"/>
  </rdf:List>

  <rdf:List rdf:nodeID="genid3">
    <rdf:first>3</rdf:first>
    <rdf:rest rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#nil"/>
  </rdf:List>

</rdf:RDF>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

or using more abbreviations to remove the rdf:nodeIDs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
  <owl:Class>
    <owl:oneOf>
      <rdf:List>
	<rdf:first>1</rdf:first>
	<rdf:rest>
	  <rdf:List>
	    <rdf:first>2</rdf:first>
	    <rdf:rest>
	      <rdf:List>
		<rdf:first>3</rdf:first>
		<rdf:rest rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#nil"/>
	      </rdf:List>
            </rdf:rest>
         </rdf:List>
       </rdf:rest>
    </rdf:List>
  </owl:Class>
</rdf:RDF>
----------------------------------------------------------------------


This is slightly related to the issue of having a way to write
literals as the subject of RDF triples (not allowed in the abstract
syntax at present, not possible in rdf/xml) which the WG is not
addressing at present.


> 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 associating a class (owl:AllDistinct) with four classes (the
owl:Things), but there doesn't seem to be any property (in the rdf
sense) doing the association.  Looking up 
  http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/mapping.html#owl_AllDifferent_mapping

I think this can already be written in legal rdf/xml as:

 	<owl:AllDifferent>
   	  <owl:distinctMembers rdf:parseType="Collection">
 	    <owl:Thing rdf:about="#John" />
 	    <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Mary" />
 	    <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Susan" />
 	    <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Joe" />
   	  </owl:distinctMembers>
 	</owl:AllDifferent>

> This is not an official request to do anything, but these issues should not
> be forgotten if there is any future work on RDF.

Sure, no problem and no promises :)

Dave

Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 09:09:10 UTC