W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Confusion about Collections

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:36:24 -0500
Message-ID: <3E21FBF8.6020601@mitre.org>
To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Garret--

Sorry, we're having version control problems, and talking at 
cross-purposes.  The version of the Primer I'm dealing with is the 17 
December version (follow the "last call candidate" link under 
"Documents" from the WG home page), and that's the version I have in my 
head!  In that version, the example is:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
          xmlns:s="http://example.edu/students/vocab#">

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/courses/6.001">
     <s:students rdf:parseType="Collection">
       <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/students/Amy"/>
       <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/students/Tim"/>
       <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/students/John"/>
     </s:students>
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Does that help?

--Frank

Garret Wilson wrote:

> Frank,
> 
> Frank Manola wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Hmmm... The 11 November 2002 version of the primer has:
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/courses/6.001">
>   <s:students rdf:parseType="Collection" >
>     <s:student rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Amy"/>
>     <s:student rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Tim"/>
>     <s:student rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/John"/>
>   </s:students>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> Each one of those <s:student> elements must generate an 
> rdf:type="s:student" *somewhere*, or there would be no point in writing 
> anything besides <rdf:Description> for each element in the collection.
> 
> What does the <s:student> signify, if not the type of each student 
> resource?
> 
>> OK, I now understand what you mean by the "long form";
> 
> 
> I am just assuming that's what Shelly meant.
> 
>  > 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 don't know either. Realizing what all these shortcuts really mean 
> (they are shortcuts for *something*, after all) might help understand 
> the concepts, but even more so thay make me step back and ponder the 
> implications of the complexity of the new round of abbreviated forms.
> 
> Garret
> 


-- 
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 18:18:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT