- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 23 Oct 2002 13:57:52 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 02:41, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > Clearly this is no big deal really - the same work can be done in WebOnt. That's not clear to me... This situation would be unacceptable to me: - you can take the URI of rdf:first and dereference it; in there, you find a reference to the RDF core spec(s); these *don't* specify that rdf:first is functional. you find no reference to WebOnt specs. meanwhile - the webont spec says "rdf:first is a FunctionalProperty". Whatever the semantics of rdf:first are, you need to be able to get them by following your nose: deferencing its address, following links from there to specs, from those specs to others, and so on. No back-link services required. I'm not sure exactly how to resolve the dependency... Here's an idea: WebOnt defines a owl:List subclass of rdf:List, on which rdf:first is functional; also, there's a local range constraint on rdf:rest so that the rest of an owl:List is an owl:List. This owl:List class is the range of properties like owl:intersectionOf. [...] > My understanding was that RDF Core agreed to provide the List syntax, and > the List vocabulary (rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:next rdf:nil); but not to > provide any (formal) semantics for these terms. Yes, that's what I remember deciding, and it's a position I support. Darn it, the rdf:collection stuff was decided 31May http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0159.html but that record doesn't show the "there are no interesting entailments around rdf:first/rest" comment that I thought I made and I thought we agreed to. > > The rationale included: > > - RDF does not include equality, > - RDF does not include contradiction, > - RDF closures of finite graphs are finite > > All three of these appear to be violated by what you are implicitly > proposing to include in the next RDF MT WD. > > --- > > Clearly this is no big deal really - the same work can be done in WebOnt. > My understanding is that list semantics do belong in WebOnt for the reasons > identified above. > > Jeremy > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 14:58:46 UTC