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

Re: try 2 - test cases for #rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity, #rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:13:10 -0500
Message-Id: <200106150316.f5F3G3905610@theinfo.org>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 06:40  PM, Brian McBride wrote:

>> Can you elaborate on why this is? I believe it is because of the
>> functional container properties thing, which we as a working
>> group have not yet made a decision on to my knowledge (do they
>> only apply to containers or any resource?).
>
> What decision do you think the WG has to make?  M&S says:
>
>   For a single collection resource there may be at most one triple
>   whose predicate is any given element of Ord.
>
> Members of Ord are not constrained to only apply to containers.
> There is no cardinality restriction stated for Ord in general.
> No issue has been raised proposing such a constraint.

Well then I'm raising an issue right now. M&S was silent on the 
use of these properties on non-container resources. Your 
proposal extends that ability, which, IMO, requires us to take a 
look at extending the same limitations of those properties in 
other environments.

>> Especially since rdf:li is a
>> special syntactic element -- I do not think we should allow it
>> to be used in this way.
>
> I don't follow your reasoning there, but +1 for its an error.

Yes, my position is that it is an error.

--
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 23:32:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:08 EDT