- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:08:08 +0200
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
I just noticed that the following syntax
<my:Class rdf:about="#a">
<my:property rdf:parseType="Collection">
<my:Class1 rdf:about=#b" />
<my:Class1 rdf:about=#c" />
</my:property>
</my:Class>
produces something like (in N3)
:a a my:Class ;
my:prop [
rdf:first :b ;
rdf:rest [
rdf:first :c ;
rdf:rest rdf:nil
]
]
while I was expecting
:a a my:Class ;
my:prop [
a rdf:List ; # ADDED
rdf:first :b ;
rdf:rest [
a rdf:List ; # ADDED
rdf:first :c ;
rdf:rest rdf:nil
]
]
Indeed, the RDF spec states that those blank nodes are "implicitly" of
type rdf:List. However, this is a shame because the
rdf:parseType="Collection" idiom can not be used in OWL (Lite and DL)
where every resource must have a type.
Is there any workaround (other than constructing the list by hand...)
existing or in development, like RDF parsers with an option to make this
typing information explicit, and/or OWL inference engines like Pellet
use such option ? Or any hot debate that I missed where it was finally
decided that this was not necessary ??
pa
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 15:08:22 UTC