- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:20:31 -0500
- To: <las@olin.edu>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Lynn Andrea Stein wrote: > > > > 1/ Syntax is (equivalent to) n-triples (i.e., RDF syntax). > > All syntax (except, maybe, datatypes) is carried in triples. > > Pretty clearly we will need *some* sort of (unordered) listing/grouping > construct that is bounded, i.e., defines a list/group containing *exactly* the > listed/grouped elements. daml:collection was one attempt to provide such a > thing. I don't believe we can avoid having such a thing. I agree that this is essential. To summarize. 1) daml:List is a reasonable construct for an (ordered, bounded) list. 2) numerous DAML language elements operate as if the list is _unordered_. In which case when the daml:List construct is interpreted as a daml:Set, it's semantics are unordered and with no repeats (I don't see a great need for an _unordered_ Bag but don't oppose this if there is in fact a use case). Properties such as: <daml:oneOf> <daml:intersectionOf> <daml:union> etc etc. operate _as if_ the List has the semantics of a set. i.e. daml:oneOf(a b c d) = daml:oneOf(b c d a) perhaps these Properties should be subclassed from a common owl:Set whose semantics are defined as expected. i.e. owl:Set(a b) = owl:Set(b a a) I see where Intuitionist Logic comes into play here i.e. to prevent owl:Set(a b) from entailing an infinite number of owl:Set(a b b) etc. In any case this seems sort of essential to the semantics of daml:oneOf which is part of DAML, and hence something that we can all agree is something part of the language we are producing. Jonathan
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 19:23:37 UTC