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

Re: Constraining Containers - erratum

From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.se>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:59:34 +0200
Message-ID: <39005EC6.4C568A6@paranormal.se>
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <pachampi@caramail.com>, RDF Intrest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
> 
> 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.

Containers are not only used because a subject has many objects with a
specific property.

How would you express the case there you always want the range to be a
container, even if that container has one or no members?

My suggestion is backwards comaptible. A parser that doesn't support
containerRange would still validate the model because the semantics of
rdfs:range remains.

It's nice to let the range of property include containers. But it isn't
bad to encurage you to make a descision on what you wan't to use;
containers or repeated properties. I can't think of a good reason to
allow both for a specific property.


-- 
/ Jonas  -  http://paranormal.se/myself/cv/index.html
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 09:58:17 GMT

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