- From: Ian MacLarty <iml@missioncriticalit.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:06:51 +1100
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 12:10:14PM +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bijan Parsia writes: > > > Are these anomalies? I'm not so sure. It makes nil a bit more like > > the empty set. One might find that anomalous on some readings of > > lists, but not on others. > > Fools rush in. . . I'm curious as to what you are appealing to for > your judgements about 'real' lists. I've struggled with this a fair > bit myself in the context of trying to build a satisfactory ontology > for XML itself. I ended up concluding that > > a) Lists were sequences (*); > b) A sequence is best understood as a function from the integers > [1..|sequence|] to its members. > > So I'd say that what's been discussed so far in this thread should be > called OFLispList or some such, since as already remarked it's > modelling lists using cons-pairs that's causing all the trouble. I don't think it's using cons pairs that's the problem, the problem is that *only* cons pairs are used (even the nil list is a cons pair). > Then > some further work is required to axiomatise a useful definition of > List and/or Sequence. AtomList is also misleading as a name in that > there's no constraint that its members be atoms, AFAIK! > The allValuesFrom(Atom) restriction on rdf:first ensures that all elements of AtomList are Atoms. Ian.
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 03:08:00 UTC