- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:56:19 -0700
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> [Uche Ogbuji] > > > The DAML+OIL reference, as an illustration of the representation of lists > as > > cons pairs, uses the following RDF snippet: > > > > <List> > > <first> > > <Thing rdf:resource="#red"> > > </first> > > <rest> > > <List> > > <first> > > <Thing rdf:resource="#white"> > > [...] > > > > The first bit of bad news is that this is not well formed XML. > > > > But even once amended, it probably doesn't mean what the DAML authors > think it > > might. It seems to me that the following makes more sense: > > > > <List> > > <first> > > <Thing rdf:about="#red"> > > </first> > > <rest> > > <List> > > <first> > > <Thing rdf:about="#white"> > > [...] > > Anyway, how are we supposed to know what a "List","first", or "rest" is > without some rdf: or DAML: namespace to tell us? Or is the processor > supposed to infer that anything with this structure is intended to be a list > regardless of the element names? At least you can go to the DAML spec itself and find the schema for List, first, rest, etc. (that, for instance, is how I completed the rdf:RDF wrapper I fed to 4RDF). But I do agree that there should be some ref to this schems in the daml:collection discussion. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 00:36:02 UTC