W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Built-in infinite recursion in our spec? (related to ISSUE-73 and ISSUE-78)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:49:55 +0100
Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6EA8C552-3D10-4DA5-9E28-C48001B789C8@w3.org>
To: nathan@webr3.org

On Feb 5, 2011, at 15:51 , Nathan wrote:

[skip]

> 
> Did we ever cover precedence and how to handle it when there are multiple conflicting entries in a profile?
> 
> for example:
> 
> [] rdfa:prefix "foo" ;
>    rdfa:uri "http://example.org/a" ;
>    rdfa:uri "http://example.org/b" .
> 
> or
> 
> [] rdfa:prefix "foo" ;
>    rdfa:uri "http://example.org/a" ;
> [] rdfa:prefix "foo" ;
>    rdfa:uri "http://example.org/b" .
> 
> or
> 
> [] rdfa:vocabulary "http://example.org/a" .
> [] rdfa:vocabulary "http://example.org/b" .
> [] rdfa:vocabulary "http://example.org/c" .
> 
> and similar, remembering of course that the triples in the graph are not ordered in any way.
> 

Actually, no. My distiller throws an extra warning for these cases, but it is indeterministic which mapping would prevail exactly for the reason you say. And I believe this should be the rule.

Ivan



> Best,
> 
> Nathan
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Saturday, 5 February 2011 16:49:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:50 UTC