- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:44:44 -0600
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
I think I discovered this issue in July last year; I keep (a) thinking that I've raised it, and (b) checking the issues list only to find that it's not there, so I guess I better get this on record... I was working on The case of the next scribe http://www.w3.org/2000/07/scribe-stuff/ trying to take a list of meeting records, each of which records the date and the scribe, and sort them by date, oldest first, and choose the next scribe from the first item of the result. I was sort of hacking this up with RDF and prolog, and I discovered that I couldn't inductively define sort() over RDF sequences because there's no empty list in RDF. There's no end marker. I can say :x a rdf:Sequence; rdf:_1 :a; rdf:_2 :b; rdf:_3 :c. and so on, but I can't say "and that's all, folks! there's nothing else in the list; if something is in :x, it's either :a, :b, or :c." Since then, I have pretty much abandoned using RDF Sequence syntax and the _1, _2 properties, and I'm just using first/rest/empty. http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/lists http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/lists.rdf http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/lists.html which evolved into rdf:parseType="daml:collection" section of DAML+OIL reference description http://pride.daml.org/2000/12/reference.html Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:02:13 GMT which is both a List/first/rest/emtpy schema and a new parseType for writing them succinctly. I wonder where this fist on the spectrum from radical-new-feature-that's-clearly-out-of-scope-for-RDF-core to little-tweak-that-we'll-add-in-week-3. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2001 02:44:46 UTC