W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2002

Re: EARL 0.95 By Example [was: Re: EARL-producing testing tool]

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:24:52 -0000
Message-ID: <00e001c1b4f6$69457a40$2cbc0150@localhost>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>, "Nadia Heninger" <nadia@barbwired.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
> If I want to assert a handful of things at once can't I use
> bags to do it?

I guess it depends upon how you'd construct such a thing, but I think
in general, no:-

When using a list, be aware that it is exhaustive
   For example, if you say that you have a brother called Jon,
   and a brother called Paul, people cannot test whether you
   have an extra brother or not. If, on the other hand, you make
   a list (cf. lists in DAML) out of your brothers, then that list is
   exhaustive: people can infer that if a person is not in that list,
   then it is not one of your brothers.
   q.v. Dan Connolly's discussion of this
   on #rdfig.
]]] - http://infomesh.net/2001/08/swtips/

Using a bag is more work (generates more triples) that just using the
properties as normal, and should only be used when you want to make an
exhaustive list, or you need to refer to a set of something. Since in
the general case we don't want to do either, it's probably a good idea
to avoid bags.

OTOH, perhaps you had something else in mind, or I'm missing the
point? This question (bags vs. properties) comes up quite a lot on the
RDF lists.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> .
:Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 20:26:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:33 UTC