There doesn't appear to be any formal semantics around this term other than the domain and range. I am assuming it is there as a result of Open World Assumptions i.e a means to explicitly state that a list has no more items...
Mistook rdf:nil for a property.
It's an individual. Domain and Range referred to above are relevant for rdf:rest and rdf:first
That is exactly its purpose. In contrast to RDF containers (
By the way: note that RDF itself poses no "well-formedness restrictions" on the use of the collection vocabulary. So you're free to create an RDF collection that does not terminate with an
However, most RDF processors will expect a collection to conform to the basic structure as illustrated in the Primer and therefore always be closed with a
First to say:
And that's only the case in RDF(S) and OWL Full. In OWL DL, where it is used a lot in the RDF encoding of argument lists (e.g. for writing
On the other hand, in OWL 2 DL, it would be an (syntactic!) error not to use
answered 04 Mar '12, 17:27
Michael Schn... ♦
rdf:nil is a particular type of list, the empty list.
:empty-list a rdf:nil .is redundant but valid, :empty-list will be a list, :)
This is based on the idea that any list have a head, rdf:first, and a tail, rdf:rest. In this context, as @jeen-broekstra said, is used, indirect, to indicate the 'end', of the list by replacing the 'missing' values for head and tail with a empty list, rdf:nil ( in fact 'end' is 'ends' if you use lists in lists)
i don't see the connection with open/closed world assumption, maybe if you expand what you think.