W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2000

Re: Constraining Containers - erratum

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <pachampi@caramail.com>
Date: Fri Apr 21 08:54:11 2000
To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.se>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <956318865022648@caramail.com>
Actually, I just saw I misunderstood you :
you were suggesting

<rdf:Property ID="myprop">
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Seq"/>
    <rdfs:containerRange rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/>
</rdf:Property>

and I suggested

<rdf:Property ID="myprop">
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/>
    <rdfs:containerRange rdf:resource="&rdf;Seq"/>
</rdf:Property>

The reason I prefer the second option is that rdfs:range 
keeps addressing the atomic value(s) of the property, (for 
either mono- or multi-valued properties)
and containerRange addresses the kind of multi-valuation 
allowed.

This would allow both 

<prop> some literal </prop>

and

<prop> <rdf:Seq>
    <rdf:li> item 1 </rdf:li>
    <rdf:li> item 2 </rdf:li>
</rdf:Seq> </prop>

assuming that the schema-valider allows the property to 
have a <containerRange> typed value, as long as all its 
list-items have type <range>.
We can assume that more than one rdfs:containerRange is 
allowed (why not), and then that no rdfs:containerRange 
disallows any (which is consistent with the stricter 
range-validity interpretation).

  Pierre-Antoine

______________________________________________________
Bote aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 08:54:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT