Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list

>Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>>  Heres one way to do it in RDF: have a special 'last thing' (say
>>  owl:LastThing) which when put into a container (which in RDF is
>>  essentially a sequence) indicates the 'end', like LISP NIL. However,
>>  unlike LISP NIL, it is only a marker; there could in fact be things
>>  'in' the container past this point - which is why it doesnt introduce
>>  negation -  ie the following would be consistent RDF:
>>
>>  ex:seq :_1 foo .
>>  ex:seq :_2 owl:lastThing .
>>  ex:seq :_3 baz .
>>
>
>Ugggh. Regardless of whether this works semantically, it would make for some
>seriously ugly looking WebOnt syntax. Some people already find the RDFisms
>hard to take. To me, a strong feature of the _unexpanded_ i.e. native XML
>syntax of "daml:collection" is that it uses XML as XML is meant to be used,
>that is every element has an ordered sequence of children.
>
>If you are going to the trouble to fix RDF/XML collections,

You miss my point. I am suggesting a way to have 'limited' OWL 
collections without making ANY alteration to RDF. I agree that RDF 
containers are ugly, but they are what they are, and its too late now 
to make large-scale changes to them. But given that RDF is the way it 
is, and given that OWL has to fit itself onto RDF as it actually is, 
this is one relatively painless way to do it.

>please do it in
>an aesthetic fashion (for those of use to whom this actually does matter)
>e.g. allow:
>
><rdf:Seq>
>         <daml:Thing rdf:resource="#A"/>
>         <daml:Thing rdf:resource="#B"/>
>         <daml:nil/>
></rdf:Seq>

I confess to not being XML-savvy enough to be able to parse that. Can 
you render into n-triples for me?

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 10:57:37 UTC