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

Re: ACTION 2001-08-24#9 : issues with containers

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:12:08 -0700
Message-Id: <v04210109b7b43d7f3f73@[130.107.66.237]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Dan Connolly wrote:
>
> > I believe so too, but the compatibility issues look hairy.
> >
> > > 2. It isn't clear whether containers (particularly sequences) can
> > > have 'gaps' or not.
> >
> > We decided (1) the spec is indeed unlear here, to
> > the point of erroneous; (2) they can have gaps;
> > hmm... at least: I thought we did;
> > I don't see it in the issues list... and I've reviewed
> > the meeting records back to May.
> >
> > Where the heck did it go?
>
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#attention-developers
>
>On 8th June 2001 the WG decided that an RDF model may contain partial
>descriptions of
>a container. Thus an RDF model is not contrained to have the 
>containermembership
>properties contiguous starting from rdf:_1.

I understand that, but that still leaves open the issue that I was 
raising, which is: given that it doesn't have the properties 
contiguous, what does that entail? Are the 'missing' elements really 
there (but not mentioned), or are they genuinely not there? So in my 
example, if
xxx rdf:_1 aaa
xxx rdf:_3 ccc
does xxx have two, or at least three, members?

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 15:11:01 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:50 EDT