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

Re: RDF Issue rdfms-duplicate-member-props

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:54:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020829.185450.65682974.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: connolly@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RDF Issue rdfms-duplicate-member-props
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:55:32 +0100

> Dan, Peter
> In
> 
>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0059.html
> 
> you raised an issue which was captured in
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-duplicate-member-props
> 
> as
> 
> [[[
> Model and Syntax says that a container can't have duplicate member properties.
> ]]]
> 
> As recorded in
> 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0028.html
> 
> the RDFCore WG has decided to close this issue with the following resolution:
> [[
>    <rdf:Bag rdf:about="http://example.org/foo">
>      <rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.org/a" />
>      <rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.org/b" />
>    </rdf:Bag>
> 
>   is syntactically legal RDF.
> ]]
> 
> Please could you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org 
> indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue.
> 
> Brian McBride
> RDFCore co-chair

This is a resolution.  I happen to think that it is the wrong resolution,
but I'm not going to formally complain.

However, this resolution does not appear to have made it into all the
places that it should.  The current version of the Primer implies that an
Alt container always has a single rdf:_1 property.

This brings up a separate issue, which I may have already brought up.  What
can be an RDF document and what is its real meaning?  Are they specified
solely by means of the RDF/XML syntax document and the RDF model theory
document (which give alternatives neither a special syntax nor a special
semantics) or do the other RDF documents have to be accounted for
(including the Primer, which gives alternatives both a special syntax and a
non-monotonic meaning)?

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 18:55:04 GMT

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