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

Re: (tentative) container model proposal

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106071857490.29416-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Dan Brickley wrote:
> [...]
> > > <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.
> >
> > I agree. Would you support the removal of P189-193 from the "RDF formal
> > model" section of the spec?
>
> More or less, yes.
>
> In detail...  I don't want to lose the axiom that rdf:_1 etc. are
> functional/unique properties:
>
> "For a single collection resource there may be at most one triple
> whose predicate is any given element of Ord"
>   --
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#193

Good point. This needs to be preserved somewhere.

This doesn't seem to be made explicit in DAML+OIL axioms btw,
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/axiomatic-semantics.html though perhaps
"f an object C is type “Container”, then C is a KIF list" does that job.

> though I'm not sure I'm happy with the way that's stated;
> and it doesn't belong in this section (where we put
> axioms that are layered on top isn't clear. But this axiom
> definitely isn't part of the RDF model/abstract-syntax.)

A possible home for this content within RDFCore's work might be in a
cleanup of RDF SChema section 6., http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#mns
"Model and Syntax concepts".


> The rest of P189-193 seems either bogus (the bit about no gaps)
> or redundant w.r.t. the specification of container syntax
> starting at P209
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#209

Yep.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > [ * danbri does some ACTION archaelogy ]
> [...]
> > Proposed issue summary:
> >
> > rdf-containers-formalmodel
> > [
> > Parags 189-193 of M+S suggest a privileged role for RDF containers within
> > the formal model at the heart of RDF. Furthermore, they suggest
> > largely unimplemented (**need to hear about Jan's
> > implementation**) constraints, either on XML encodings of RDF, on other
> > (eg. database implementations) or on both. These paragraphs are either in
> > error (RDF does allow for partial descriptions) or editorially redundant:
> > in either case they should be removed.
> > ]
>
> The last sentence sounds more like a proposed for how to resolve
> it than a summary of the issue. I mostly agree, but (a) I found
> some novelty in the text and (b) the other issue summaries
> seem to relfect an attempt to make neutral summaries, without
> pre-judging the outcome.
>
> But yes, it's an issue
> and it's not subsumed by syntax-ambiguity nor syntax-vs-schema.

You're right; I was over opinionated. I'm too jetlagged now to suggest a
clean fixup, but I agree that issue summaries shouldn't contain their
resolution.

Danzzz
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 19:10:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:04 EDT