- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:58:24 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
At 10:04 +0000 3/27/03, Brian McBride wrote: >Hi Jim, > >I've added the issue to the postponed issues list: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfxml-literals-in-collections > >keeping the reference to the original message raising the issue and >adding "see also" links to both the webont submission and Jim's >update. > >Jim, please could you check that this is captured to your satisfaction. yes, that looks good, and I therefore accept the decision of the RDF Core WG. > >At 21:31 26/03/2003 -0500, Jim Hendler wrote: > >[...] > >>If I use current RDF constructs I have no way to produce this as a >>closed list. > >You might want to amend this statement. I think your point is that >the syntax required is ugly, not that it can't be done, Right? Sorry, what I meant to say in this sentence was If I use the other current RDF list constructs (i.e. not including collection) then I cannot produce this as a closed list. (i.e. seq, bag, etc. are designed so that elements can be added to them, collection is designed to be "all and only" the members of some list) So this sentence was meant to address the nature of the other constructs, not the ugliness of collection for datatypes. Apologies for not being clearer before. >Brian -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 08:02:15 UTC