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

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

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:13:06 -0500
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B74CFB41.DDFC%aswartz@upclink.com>
Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> An argument can be made that reseting the count in this way is an example
> of feature creep and would be best avoided.  It provides more syntactic sugar
> than the language described in M&S.  It adds little value, creates
> more work for implementors and creates confusion, as in the case outlined
> above.

I agree with your proposal, although I do not understand your test case
results. You write:

> This the example given above:
>
>   <rdf:Bag>
>     <rdf:li>1</rdf:li>
>     <rdf:_10>10</rdf:li>
>     <rdf:li>11</rdf:li>
>   </rdf:Bag>
>
> would generate:
>
>   _:genid <rdf:type> <rdf:Bag>.
>   _:genid <rdf:_1>   "1" .
>   _:genid <rdf:_10>  "10" .
>   _:genid <rdf:_11>  "2" .
>

I think you mean:

  _:genid <rdf:type> <rdf:Bag>.
  _:genid <rdf:_1>   "1" .
  _:genid <rdf:_10>  "10" .
  _:genid <rdf:_2>   "11" .

is that correct?

Personally, I want to see the rdf:li syntactic mechanism completely
deprecated/removed at some point. But this is a good step there.

-- 
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com> ]
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 12:13:24 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:07 EDT