W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

Re: containers test0004 baffles me

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:53:53 +0200
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MABBLGKMPIJFCKFGDBEPEEGFCAAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Sorry my e-mail on this topic got out before it was meant to.
I insert/correct the references etc

> containers test0004 involves the fourth expansion of the property element
> production rule 6.12.

 [6.12] propertyElt    ::= [ omit ]
                      | '<' propName idRefAttr? bagIdAttr? propAttr* '/>'

> By the decision to drop all the special container rules, this expnasion
> applies to rdf:li. By paragraph 232 (which is so horrible its number!)
> fourth expansion is different from the others, in that it does not reify,
> but the ID is the ID of the resource.

> in my opinion para 232 is an error, and is addressed in the unresolved

No, it isn't. None of the issues would allow us to drop para 232 if we
wanted to. We would need to start a new issue first.

> I did some archaelogy on this one, and as far as I could tell, this
> paragraph dates from the early days before the first working group
> issues 4, 7 ,11 and they still had a certain amount of confusion about
> referring to a resource and referring to the description of the resource.
> think it is a hard call whether to delete paragraph 232 or preserve it for
> the sake of backwards compatibility.

I have probably got those issues numbers wrong, and need to go over the
member archives to get the references. I will do that early september if
there is interest.

Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I guess my implementation will raise a "not supported"
> > exception in that case; I don't see sufficient value
> > to implement this.

> test0005 is also difficult for some parser writers (e.g. me). It is fine
> you really are using an XSLT transform to process rdf:li, but if you're
> you need some fairly horrid special code for processing a corner case that
> nobody in their right mind would rely on. ARP does it, but I personally am
> very sympathetic to a not supported exception.

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 14:44:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:50 UTC