Re: Issue on setting of [current resource] (addendum to Re: Issue on the latest syntax document: setting of [chaining])

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Ah...I think I see what's happening. :)
> 
> You are right that we need an extra flag, but I'd suggest we add one
> called 'recurse'. You seem to have changed the meaning of my
> 'chaining' flag to fit recursion, and now you need to add another flag
> for 'change resource'; but that is exactly what the 'chaining' flag
> already does, so it seems just as easy to add a 'recurse' flag.
> 
> Are you ok with that Ivan? I'm basically saying that you are spot on
> with the problem that you describing, but that the problem doesn't
> actually really relate to chaining, but to recursion. We therefore
> need a flag to inhibit recursion under the conditions you are
> describing (when any nested mark-up serves as a literal).
> 

Ah, o.k., I did not realize that. Yes, you are right. I interpreted your
'chaining' flag as a control to recursion! :-)

Ivan


> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> On 09/09/2007, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> My apologies not to have realized that in my earlier mail.
>>
>> The current description relies on the value of [chaining] for setting
>> the value of [current resource] to [current object resource]. That does
>> not apply any more if what I say below is correct.
>>
>> Maybe not the most elegant, but the way I see solving this is to use yet
>> another flag, called [change resource]. Using this flag, two changes:
>>
>> - The 3rd item in 3rd step currently says:
>>
>> "If any triples are generated then the [chaining] flag is set to true."
>>
>> which should be changed to
>>
>> "If any triples are generated then the [change resource] flag is set to
>> true."
>>
>> - 4th step should say:
>>
>> 4. If the [change resource] flag is set to true then the [current
>> resource] is set to the value of the [current object resource], and the
>> [change resource] flag is set to false.
>>
>> I know I do not refer to @instanceof in this mail, but I will describe
>> in my next mail why:-)
>>
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> To make the versioning clear, this is a comment on
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070906/
>>>
>>> on Section 4.3, Processing
>>>
>>> At present, the flag [chaining] is bound to @rel, @rev, or @instanceof.
>>> The processing steps say that _if_ any of those attributes generate
>>> valid triples, (2nd and 3rd item in the 3rd step), then the [chaining]
>>> flag is set to True. Otherwise it is False (although this latter is not
>>> explicitly said in the text). I am not sure that is correct. Inspired by
>>> Mark's beloved example:-):
>>>
>>> <span property="a:bla" rel="p:q" resource="http://a.b.c">Einstein said
>>> E=mc<sup>2</sup></span>
>>>
>>> This will generate the triples
>>>
>>> <> p:q <http://a.b.c>;
>>>    a:bla "Einstein said E=mc<sup>2</sup>"^^rdfs:XMLLiteral.
>>>
>>> which is fine, but I do not think that chaining should go beyond the
>>> <span> element in this case. Put it in an informal way, [current object
>>> literal] has already provided for a correct interpretation of that
>>> content...
>>>
>>> I think the correct way of saying this is that:
>>>
>>> - [chaining] is set to True by default when entering processing [current
>>> element]
>>> - [chaining] is set to False, if
>>>    - no @content attribute is present
>>>    - any triples are generated using the [current object literal], ie,
>>>      first item in 3rd step.
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 

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