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: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:51:56 +0100
Message-ID: <3B2F832C.B8CB4298@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Art,

Thanks for reviewing these.

Art Barstow wrote:

> is the following legal:
> 
>  <rdf:DF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>    <rdf:_1/>
>  </rdf:RDF>

I know of no reason why it does not conform to the rules of the language.

> 
> If so, it would be good to add a test for this special case.

I've updated 
 
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test005.rdf
to include it.

> 
> WRT #6:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test006.nt
> 
> why is this triple added to the last sub-case:
> 
>  <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test006.rdf#e3>
>      <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1> _:stmt1 .

The last subcase is:

  <rdf:Bag rdf:bagID="e3"/>

The presence of the bagID triggers the reification of statements in the
description and placing them in the bag.  In paragraph

 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2001Jun/att-0017/01-rdfms.html#p228

it states:

  A Description expressed in typedNode form by production [6.13] is 
  equivalent to the same Description expressed by production [6.3] ...

Therefore this statement is equivalent to:

  <rdf:Description rdf:bagID="e3">
    <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag"/>
  </rdf:Description>

and thus a reified statement of the rdf:type statement should be placed in
the bag.  Unless  I have missed something, that is what the statement you are
asking about does.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 12:53:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:12 EDT