- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:18:55 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Can't we split responsibility here. > >RDF Core provides: >- rdf:parseType="collection" >- rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:nil > >WOWG >- provides functionality (i.e. uniqueness) > > >Consider > > ><rdf:RDF> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="#foo" rdf:parseType="collection"> > </rdf:Description> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="#foo" rdf:parseType="collection"> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="#bar"/> > </rdf:Description> ></rdf:RDF> > >#foo is a non-standard collection with lengths of both 0 and 1. > >This could be legal RDF and ill-formed at the ontology level. > >Jeremy > Yes, this is what I thought (until yesterday) the proposal amounted to. I like this as it keeps RDF's hands clean but also lets WOWG do what it wants to do. On the other hand, one could take the line that if this is all that RDF is providing, why do *we* need to do it? I mean, they could just use the daml:collection vocabulary, right? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 10:18:50 UTC