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

Re: rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:13:24 -0000
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGEMACCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> - M&S is contradictory and has widely varying implementations of its
> reification syntax.


The important test cases are:


[1]
<RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:a="http://example.org/"
>

<rdf:Description>
	<rdf:value rdf:ID="foo" a:foo="bar"/>
</rdf:Description>
</RDF>

[2]

<RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:a="http://example.org/"
>

<rdf:Description>
	<rdf:value rdf:ID="foo" rdf:parseType="Resource"/>
</rdf:Description>
</RDF>

[3]

<RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:a="http://example.org/"
>

<rdf:Description>
	<rdf:value rdf:ID="foo" rdf:bagID="bag"/>
</rdf:Description>
</RDF>

The current WD (which is like a reading of M&S giving priority to para232
over para214) has [1] as identifying the object resource, and [2] as
identifying the reification and [3] as undefined. M&S with the
priority-reading gives [3] as reification.

No implementations that I know of implement M&S with the priority-reading in
that if [1] is reification then so is [3]. (No - I haven't checked SiRPAC -
this might do it).

Some implementations have [1] as reification (e.g. RDFFilter;
http://rdfstoredemo.jrc.it/ ), some have [2] as identifying the object
resource (e.g. VRP, http://wonkituck.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/rdfs.html ).

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 10:14:04 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:52 EDT