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

Re: #rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity,#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:19:33 +0100
Message-ID: <3B25ECB5.B1BA527C@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

pat hayes wrote:
> I have a question about this proposal. It says:
>   3) rdf:li processing
>      This description of rdf:li processing is described in
>      terms of an implementation.  Parsers are not required
>      to implement it this way, but however they implement
>      it, the effect should be the same as if it had been
>      implemented as described here.
>      rdf:li, when it is encountered in the propName (6.14)
>      production, is transformed to an ordinal property, i.e.
>      one of rdf:_1, rdf:_2 etc.
>      It is transformed to the successor of the last ordinal
>      property encountered within the current element.  If
>      this is the first ordinal property encountered within
>      the current element, then ....
> My question is, do 'when it is encountered' and 'last ordinal
> property encountered' refer to the time-sequence in which the
> encounterings occur, and doesn't that depend on the implementation
> details of the parser? And if so, what does the requirement in the
> first paragraph even mean?

As I understand things, in XML the order of elements in a document is
significant, i.e.


is not the same document as:


So really the proposal is saying that the rdf:li's are processed in
document order.

Note that this is not true for attributes on elements.  Thus

  <foo:bar rdf:_1="1" rdf:_2="2"/>

is the 'same' document as:

  <foo:bar rdf:_2="2" rdf:_1="1"/>

and that is the reason for the second problem I acknowedged in 


The first paragraph is basically acknowledging that the proposal as
given is written in procedural terms, and that it should be re-written
in a declarative style.

> If 'encountered' has some more technical meaning in this context
> which makes it clear from the syntax what order the encountering has
> to happen, then it might be better to state the ordering in those
> terms (?)

Yes.  I agree.  Now if I could just get an hour or two ...

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 06:21:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:49 UTC