W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: rdf:li ?? in primer

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:51:27 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b1aba1a76fe0223@[10.0.100.86]>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>  >>>pat hayes said:
>>
>>  Frank, your prose in section 4.1 of the primer mentions rdf:li as a
>>  convenience element generic XML version of container membership
>>  properties. My recollection is that we had decided to deprecate or
>>  even forbid rdf:li in this way, however (??) on the grounds that
>>  there was in general no way to assign numerical properties to the
>>  instances of rdf:li.
>>
>>  We ought to get this straight one way or the other. If we still have
>>  rdf:li, can anyone tell me how to map RDF/XML into a graph?
>>
>>  Another matter, if we keep rdf:li, then your reference to 'list
>>  element' is potentially confusing given the use of 'list structure'
>>  in the next section to refer to something completely different.
>
>I think you are a bit confused Pat.

Yes, I was.

I have to say, this idea of a 'syntax name' that isn't actually a 
name *is* very confusing, particularly when it sure LOOKS like a 
name.  Im still puzzled about how it's supposed to actually work. 
Seems to me that the actual graph formed from some RDF/XML which uses 
rdf:li can vary from moment to moment at the whim of the parser, 
since it depends on some ordering that isnt specified in the syntax.

>  rdf:li is a syntax name; it has
>never been an RDF property, class or whatever.  We have thus never
>deprecated or forbidden it.

Well, its ours, right? I mean, its in our namespace? It starts with 
'rdf:', after all.

>
>Just to be clear; RDF as we have revised has changed two names in the
>RDF namespace
>   rdf:aboutEach rdf:aboutEachPrefix - syntax only devices, now removed
>
>(we've added some of course)
>
>The definitive words for rdf: things:
>
>   5.1 The RDF Namespace
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace

OK, thanks.

>
>including:
>   [[Syntax names - not concepts
>
>     RDF Description ID about bagID parseType resource li nodeID
>     datatype
>   ]]

Now Im puzzled about something else. I've been using rdf:Datatype as 
a class name. Is that a mistake??

Pat

PS. BTW, you say there that 'any other names are not defined and 
SHOULD generate a warning when encountered' which seems a bit strong. 
That means for example that any OWL vocabulary is going to generate 
an RDF warning. In fact, any RDFS vocabulary is going to generate an 
RDF warning.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 11:51:48 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:50 EDT