- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:33:08 -0500
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Garret Wilson wrote: > Frank, > > Frank Manola wrote: > >> Shelley Powers wrote: >> >>> Clarification on this, Frank: there is a strong mapping between the >>> RDF/XML >>> of the Container and the generated graph, but almost no mapping at all >>> between the Collection RDF/XML and the generated graph. One could say >>> that >>> the Collection is the ultimate RDF shortcut. This is going to cause >>> confusion, particularly as people try and figure how to programmatically >>> access a 'Collection'. (N-Triples of the graph might help with that.) >>> >>> Wouldn't be a good idea to show the 'long form' of the Collection, as >>> tedious as it is, in addition to the short form? With this, then >>> people can >>> see for themselves the mapping. They'll be able to take the steps >>> that get >>> them from Point A to Point B. >> >> >> I need some clarification about your clarification. I understand what >> you say about the mapping between the RDF/XML of the collection and the >> generated graph (there is one; it's described in the Syntax >> specification, but reading it isn't for the faint of heart), and I'm >> concocting some words to try to describe it. However, I'm not sure I >> understand what you mean by the "long form" of the Collection. > > > Simple: the long form would be, for example (from the primer): > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/courses/6.001"> > <s:students> > <rdf:Description> > <rdf:type="&rdf;List"/> > <rdf:first="http://example.edu/students/Amy"/> > <rdf:rest> > <rdf:Description> > <rdf:type="&rdf;List"/> > <rdf:first="http://example.edu/students/Tim"/> > <rdf:rest> > <rdf:Description> > <rdf:type="&rdf;List"/> > <rdf:first="http://example.edu/students/John"/> > <rdf:rest> > <rdf:Description> > <rdf:type="&rdf;List"/> > <rdf:first="http://example.edu/students/John"/> > <rdf:rest rdf:resource="&rdf;nil"/> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:rest> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:rest> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:rest> > </rdf:Description> > </s:students> > </rdf:Description> > > Note that this "long form" doesn't show that each referenced student has > an rdf:type of s:student. Maybe the example should just use > rdf:Description for each Collection node. Garret-- Point of clarification: none of the forms is supposed to show each referenced student as having an rdf:type of s:student. s:students is the name of the relationship between the course and the collection of students. If you wanted to identify the students as each having rdf:type of s:student, you could of course do so, but that's not part of the example at the moment. > > > It seems > >> to me that the graph is the "long form" (that is, it shows the consed >> list, in all its "glory"), and there's a drawn graph in the Primer. Are >> you saying that a *triples* version of that graph would be clearer, and >> would help people more than the drawing (he asked in astonishment)? If >> so, do you mean in addition to or instead of the drawing? > > > Not the graph, not the triples---the long form of the RDF+XML > serialization. (Of course, the graph is very useful, too.) > OK, I now understand what you mean by the "long form"; I just don't know how much it clarifies (the "long form" isn't even illustrated in the Syntax spec), and I don't think we expect anyone to write the "long form" directly (unlike some of the other abbreviated forms). I'll think about adding this, but even if I do, it won't appear in the Last Call version (which we expect to be out shortly). --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Sunday, 12 January 2003 16:14:46 UTC