W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > December 2007

Re: telecon Thursday, 1600 UTC

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:41:25 +0100
Message-ID: <476BECB5.9030003@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sorry, 'contradiction' is not the right word, I just realized.
Contradiction in the sense that the behaviour of @rel and @instanceof
becomes very different. Indeed, if I modify the example below, what you
seem to say is that the following:

<div about="#q" rel="q:r"><div instanceof="a:b"/></div>

yields

_:x rdf:type a:b.

and nothing else. Whereas I would really expect

<#q> q:r [ rdf:type a:b ].

:-(

Ivan

Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> Manu Sporny wrote:
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> <div about="#q"><div resource="A" rel="a:b"/></div>
>>>
>>> which yields
>>>
>>> <#q> a:b <A>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> or the Bnode from a hanging rel, like
>>>
>>> <div about="#q" rel="q:r"><div resource="A" rel="a:b"/></div>
>>>
>>> <#q> q:r [ a:b <A> ].
>> Also, correct (I think)... although, I don't think we have a test case
>> for this at the moment.
>>
> 
> Well... this is in contradiction with... (see below)
> 
> 
>>> The behaviour of @instanceof seems to follow the same pattern for most
>>> of the cases, but you seem to imply that, somehow, in some cases, an
>>> extra BNode is generated for the subject of @instanceof. Can anybody
>>> tell me what the result of, say:
>>>
>>> <div about="#q" rel="q:r"><div instanceof="q:s"/></div>
>>>
>>> is? My instinct would say
>>>
>>> <#q> q:r [ rdf:type q:s ]. Manu, you say above
>> >From my understanding, which includes Ben's most recent proposal, this
>> is the behavior of @instanceof:
>>
>> 1. Applies to @about or @src if either exist on the current
>>    element, @about takes precedence over @src.
>> 2. Creates a new bnode if there is no @about or @src on the current
>>    element.
>>
> 
> ... THIS! If the @instanceof creates a bnode if there is no @about or
> @src, then @instanceof can never be bound to a 'hanging rel', so to say,
> ie, to a bnode generated in the parent. I think that is a serious flaw,
> in my view; I have been saying that many times now...
> 
> Ivan
> 
>>>>>  <div resource="A" instanceof="B" />
>>>> _:x rdf:type B
>>> But WHICH _:x are you talking about? A new one just created for the
>>> local instanceof? Is it an inherited subject from the parent?
>> I'm talking about the new one that was just created for the local
>> @instanceof. @instanceof does not inherit anything, ever.
>>
>>>>>   <a href="A" instanceof="B">label</a>
>>>> _:x rdf:type B
>>>>
>>>> Again, I thought we agreed that @instanceof doesn't apply to @href.
>>> More exactly: we agreed that, for almost all aspect of the processing,
>>> @resource and @href behave in an identical manner.
>> Correct!
>>
>> We talked about Mark's most recent e-mail[1] and it deviates from the
>> understanding of the group
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Dec/0125.html
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 16:41:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:19 GMT