- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:08:44 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 10:39 30/01/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > > Might your concern be addressed if the text were modified to include a > > discussion of well formed and not well formed lists. I'd probably need > > some help with the wording, but something along the lines of: > > > > [[ > > A rdf:List is well formed if it meets either of the following conditions: > > > > o it is rdf:nil > > o - it has exactly one rdf:first property, > > - and it has one rdf:rest property > > - and the value of its rdf:rest property is a well formed list. > >This is not sufficient to describe well-formed lists! (Think of infinite >or circular lists. Also think of what happens if rdf:nil is the subject of >a triple whose predicate is rdf:first or rdf:rest.) Just so. Right, I think we've got the point where we have clarified what the issue is, but we are probably going to have to think a little more about how best to address it. Summary: The RDF Schema document http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab describes lists as though they were always "well formed", which they are not. I've recorded this as issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-12 Brian
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 12:09:21 UTC