- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:07:42 -0000
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
The newly published RDF Semantics has stuff to say e.g.: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20021112/#collections [ As this example shows, it is also possible to write a set of triples which underspecify a collection by failing to specify its rdf:rest property value. Semantic extensions MAY place extra syntactic well-formedness restrictions on the use of this vocabulary in order to rule out such graphs, and MAY exclude interpretations of the collection vocabulary which violate the convention that the subject of a 'linked' collection of three-triple items of the form described above, ending with an item ending with rdf:nil, denotes a totally ordered sequence whose members are the denotations of the rdf:first values of the items, in the order got by tracing the rdf:rest properties from the subject to rdf:nil. This permits sequences which contain other sequences. ] i.e. it is intended to set up the framework in which RDF does not actually give the expected meaning of rdf:List, but that OWL may insist on that meaning. Since the rdf:parseType="Collection" syntax seemed to meet our needs, all we need to consider is whether the semantics, and the notion of semantic extension, suffice. (I haven't yet got round to reading the OWL Semantics .... ) Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 16:04:09 UTC