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

Re: (tentative) container model proposal

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 22:48:47 -0500
Message-ID: <3B1EF99F.86B846E2@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote:
>         http://www.w3.org/2001/05/rdf-c/ (copied below in text form)
[...]
> I am well aware that the proposal is currently in a skeletal state, and
> lacks test cases. I hope it provides at least some useful background for
> discussion on friday. Regarding test cases, I have to say I'm stumped: the
> implementations this relate to are databases, APIs etc rather than
> parsers, and I am not sure how best to represent tests of that kind.

Er... maybe I'm missing something, but I read it twice, and it
seems to reduce to this simple test case: is this an RDF
document or not?

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <rdf:Description>
        <rdf:_1>abc</rdf:_1>
        <rdf:_3>def</rdf:_3>
    </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

The simplest answer that meets my needs is: yes, that's
an RDF document. The parts of the spec that suggest
otherwise are an error.

To my mind, anything that suggest that containers are
fundamental in any way -- that they are anything
more than a standardized vocabulary of classes and
properties and some syntactic sugar -- is an error.

Now this doesn't resolve either of the active issues you
own, danbri, so maybe I missed the gist of your proposal.

http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 23:48:56 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:03 EDT