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

Re: rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema - Action point from 2001-06-15

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:08:20 -0500
Message-ID: <3B3A1304.8698A576@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
OK; I'm satisfied.

For the decision record, please cite the part of the spec
that's relevant to...

>   o enables correct processing of sub classes of the containers, even
>     by a non-schema aware parser.

as rationale for this decision,
and cite some part of the spec that we're deciding
is in error (a grammar production?).


Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> Dan Connolly wrote:
[...]
> > hmm... having rdf:li turn into rdf:_nn outside
> > of rdf:Bag/Alt/Seq looks like a design change, to me.
> 
> Not sure exactly what consititutes a design change.  This proposal:
> 
>   o will generate the same triples for any RDF/XML which is legal
>     according to the stricter interpretation of m&s, i.e. restricted
>     containers
> 
>   o does not extend the expressive power of the language in that
>     anything that can be expressed under this proposal can be
>     expressed using the stricter interpretation of M&S
> 
>   o enables correct processing of sub classes of the containers, even
>     by a non-schema aware parser.
> 
>   o simplifies both the grammar and the parser implementation
> 
>   o has no identified disadvantages
> 
> >
> > It's interesting, but can we reasonable expect implementors
> > to have gotten that from the original spec?
> 
> An implementor after reading the original spec would note that <rdf:li...
> matches the property element production and would have to decide how
> to process it in that context.  Such an implementor might note that
> there is no property rdf:li mentioned in m&s and might also give some
> weight to the fact that such a property is not mentioned in the RDF
> Schema candidate rec either. An implementor could take one of three
> main options:
> 
>   o regard the statement as illegal
>   o generate an rdf:li property, even though there is no such property
>     in the rdf namespace
>   o translate the rdf:li to rdf:_nnn
> 
> Given the practical benefits of the last of these choices (will handle
> subclasses of containers), and that it breaks no rules (ordinal properties
> have no domain constraints) this seems like a reasonable choice for
> an implementor.
[...]

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 13:09:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:18 EDT