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

Re: proposed closure of pfps-12 Re: pfps-12 lists are not well formed

From: Karsten Tolle <tolle@dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 15:13:17 +0200
Message-ID: <002901c3708a$ee0b1f90$230b028d@HANNOVER>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Dear Dan,

together with the current version of the RDF Primer the text of RDF Schema

describes the current situation very well!-)



My concern is more about the current situation itself. We have two
structures,

where the different container types have the benefit of serving a basic
semantic but without

the benefit of the lists (without a basic semantic) allowing to say all
members are present.

When a user now wants to create his RDF representation he needs to decide
what to

choose . if he knows about it . and each decision has its drawback.



The best would be that in cases of well formed containers and collections we
might

be able to find a mapping between the two. But we would need an extension of
the current

structures for it.



Possible solution (just a first try):

a)      Mapping from collection to container:
Including the containers rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq and rdf:Alt to the class of
rdf:List. This
would enable the writer of RDF to construct an collection using the
container types.
In case all collection elements (the blank nodes) are of one container type
(which can not

    be ensured), the structure could be transformed in an corresponding
container.
Open problem here would be how to handle the member numbers for sequences,
e.g.
a sequence just containing rdf:_2 and rdf:_5 is also valid. But I am sure
that there are
ways to solve this.

b)      Mapping from container to collections:
A property could be introduced telling the counted number of members. If
this
information is present we can check if all members are around and could also
construct the corresponding collection (as described in a).



(I hope it is understandable. If not just let me know and I would try to
generate some
examples to explain it more in detail.)



The goal at the end would be to have just one structure containing all
benefits and to be able
to transform existing RDF/XML structures into the new one.



Greetings,

Karsten



P.S.: For the RDF/XML representation in the Editors Draft of RDF Schema

I have the following comments:

a)      In the definition of rdfs:isDefinedBy the declaration of being of
type
Property is twice.

b)      For my opinion rdf:List should be also sub class of rdfs:Resource.

c)      The definition of rdfs:member is ok, but wouldn't it make sense to
say that it is of type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty?





>
> Peter, Karsten,
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/ (editor's
> working copy) is now updated with our finalised Lists text. We propose
> to close this LC issue on the basis of the new wording. Could you both
> reply to this message to let us know whether the current text is
> acceptable and resolves your issue.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
> ps. Karsten, regarding your concern that we have both containers and
> collections, those two mechanisms are described in more detail in the
> Primer, see editor's copy section 4,
>
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/#othercapabiliti
es
> which provides a lengthier explanation of both constructs.
>
>
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-06-23
13:29-0400]
> > From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: pfps-12 lists are not well formed
> > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:05:53 -0400
> >
> > > * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-06-18
16:04-0400]
> > > > This appears to be on the right track, but I have no way of viewing
the
> > > > other changes, and no way of viewing the changes in context, so I
don't see
> > > > how I can determine whether the changes are satisfactory.
> > >
> > > Fair point. The WD text has changed little since last call. I have
some
> > > outstanding edits derrived from other LC comments, but nothing (to my
> > > knowledge) which should impact on this issue.
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/ is the
> > > LC text plus some minor edits:
> > >
> > > ----------------------------
> > > revision 1.12
> > > date: 2003/04/11 13:58:50;  author: danbri;  state: Exp;  lines: +1 -1
> > > Fixed typo per:
> > >
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0416.html:wq
> > > ----------------------------
> > > revision 1.11
> > > date: 2003/01/24 18:03:53;  author: danbri;  state: Exp;  lines:
+51 -43
> > > fixed date errors.
> > > ----------------------------
> > >
> > > I plan to make some more modest updates in-place at that URL (with
> > > 'status' updated accordingly to avoid confusion), until we agree new
URIs for
> > > the next batch of TR-published RDFCore docs.
> > >
> > > My editorial todo list is based on the issue closures linked from
> > > our LC issue list, see
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#schema
> > >
> > > I hope this clarifies the state of the doc for you. If I commit
changes
> > > to the spec I'll make these explicit so you can see what's what.
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > >
> > > Dan
> >
> > Good.  I await the changes to the appropriate sections of the document
for
> > final approval then.
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> > Lucent Technologies
> >
>
Received on Monday, 1 September 2003 09:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT