- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:06:38 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Peter (stating his false beliefs about Jeremy): > > > Well, I don't think that you get want you need out of this > sort of thing. Peter again: > So, for DAML+OIL lists to behave as expected, there needs to be a > *syntactic* restriction on them, not a *semantic* one, which is all that > can be stated in DAML+OIL. > hmm, that's not my expectations. e.g. if lists are syntactic then <daml:UniqueProperty rdf:about="http://example.org/#uniq"/> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#foo"> <eg:uniq rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#member/> </eg:uniq> <eg:uniq rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#member/> </eg:uniq> </rdf:Description> is contradictory and/or meaningless because the two lists are required to be semantically the same thing by the unicity constraint, but they are not (even though they are identical things - this identity is a semantic condition that could be defined with say graph isomorphism). It seems to me that we have no mechanism in any semantic web technology to specify syntactic constraints on the graph; and so introducing one seems high cost. I would like to have a better understanding of the benefits of a syntactic mechanism that appears to me to merely duplicate semantic mechanisms that already exist. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 10:07:01 UTC