W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2000

Misleading note about extensibiity of Collection syntax

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:53:54 -0500
Message-ID: <3989B1B2.1787E12B@w3.org>
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
I think this is bogus:

"Note: The RDF Schema specification [RDFSCHEMA] also defines
a mechanism to declare additional subclasses of these container
types, in which case production [18] is extended to include the
names of those declared subclasses."

-- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#containers

For example, consider:

<rdf:RDF
	xmlns="#"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
	>
<MyContainer>
 <rdf:li>foo</rdf:li>
</MyContainer>

<rdfs:Class id="#MyContainer">
  <rdfs:subClassOf 
    rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Container"/>
</rdfs:Class>

</rdf:RDF>

Is an RDF 1.0 parser expected to parse MyContainer
as a typednode or as a container? The note suggests
container... but suppose the statement that
MyContainer is a Container were in some document
linked from this one, and that document's source
was questionable, and I don't necessarily trust it.
Does the model I get from this document depend
on whether I trust some other document? I hope not.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2000 13:54:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:27 GMT