Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case

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