W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2002

rdfms-nested-bagIDs was (Re: RDF Issue)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:01:18 -0000
To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGEHFCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Hi Pierre-Antoine

it appears from your message:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0214.html

that the WGs resolution of the nested bagIDs issue was insufficiently clear.

I believe that the intent is now slightly clearer and point you at:

The current editors draft of the syntax doc:

http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#nodeElement
http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#emptyPropertyElt

(this draft has not yet been approved but is likely to be published with
minor changes very soon).

And the relevant test cases (that were approved last week)

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-nested-bagIDs/


In particular your suggestion:

> So we could propose an idiom like rdf:bagID="",
> overriding the outer bagID but creating no additional bag.

is, if I have understood you correctly, the default behaviour.
That is reifications of the more deeply nested triples that could go into an
additional bag *never* go into the outer bag.

See particularly test004:

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-nested-bagIDs/test004.rdf
and
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-nested-bagIDs/test004.nt


Once again, can we ask you to reply to the www-rdf-comments@w3.org list,
indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue.

Jeremy Carroll
HP rep on RDF Core WG
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 12:01:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT