- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:03:45 -0400
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: DTTF: List Ontology test case Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:18:52 +0100 > > I still need to send a message introducing the "List Ontology" test case. > > I think of daml:Lists as a vocabulary: > daml:first > daml:rest > daml:List > daml:nil > > and as an ontology for using this vocab that could be described in daml. > > e.g. > > (using rdf:aboutq with qnames instead of rdf:about with URIrefs!) > > <daml:Class rdf:about="#EmptyList"> > <daml:oneOf> > <rdf:Description rdf:aboutq="daml:nil"> > </daml:oneOf> > </daml:Class> > <daml:Class rdf:aboutq="daml:List"> > <daml:unionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > <daml:Class rdf:about="#EmptyList"/> > <daml:Class rdf:about="#NonEmptyList"/> > </daml:unionOf> > </daml:Class> > <daml:ObjectProperty rdf:aboutq="daml:rest> > <daml:range rdf:resourceq="daml:List"/> > </daml:ObjectProperty> > <daml:ObjectProperty rdf:aboutq="daml:first"/> > <daml:Class rdf:about="#NonEmptyList"> > <daml:sameClassAs> > <daml:Restriction> > <daml:onProperty rdf:resourceq="daml:rest"/> > <daml:hasValue rdf:resourceq="daml:Thing"/> > </daml:Restriction> > </daml:sameClassAs> > </daml:Class> > > etc. etc. > > Ths test case is meant to capture that intent. > If daml:Lists are dark, then this sort of ontology has little formal > meaning. > > Jeremy Well, I don't think that you get want you need out of this sort of thing. In particular, making you are not capturing the fact that there can only be one daml:first and one daml:rest triple for any particular list head. In fact, you can't capture this at all in DAML+OIL or FOWL. peter
Received on Saturday, 27 April 2002 11:05:32 UTC