RE: parseType=Collection and rdf:List

> >
> > A while ago RDFCore proposed those to be
> >     rdf:List
> >     rdf:first
> >     rdf:rest
> >     rdf:nil
> > where @prefix rdf: <> .
> > That was in message
> >
> >
> > -- ,
> > Jos De Roo, AGFA
> It would be useful if the RDF Syntax working draft was updated to completely
> reflect this decision.  As of now, only about half of the necessary changes
> are in there.  I also don't believe that the necessary changes have been
> made to the RDF MT document.
> Perhaps this would be a good point to include in this week's telecon, as it
> sure would be nice to be able to remove the section on collections from the
> reference description and instead point to RDF Core WG documents, even if
> only drafts.
> peter

A further complication is, IIRC, that the RDF Core are:
+ only defining syntactic rules for RDF/XML to triples

In particular:
+ rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest etc. are in the domain of discourse
+ there is no unicity constraint

Hence, we may wish to define the unicity constraints for OWL; and we need to
consider how to address the domain of discourse issue.

Options include:
+ agreeing to go with Dan's model theory in which the lists are in the domain of
(my pref)

+ asking RDF Core to make this construct dark

+ aiming to only be a weak semantic extension of RDF


(I note that the latter has not addressed lists at all)

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 05:11:29 UTC