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

Re: TR: Re: Constraining Containers - erratum

From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.se>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:23:27 +0200 (CEST)
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
cc: RDF Intrest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000425151419.25081A-100000@paranormal.se>
> >  I can't think of a good reason to allow both for a specific property.
> 
> simplicity. As an RDF user, I would rather type
> 
> 
> <dc:Author> Pierre-Antoine </dc:Author>
> 
> than
> 
> <dc:Author> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li> Pierre-Antoine </rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> 
> </dc:Author>
> 
> just because someone pointed out
> that there MAY be more than one author !

It IS legal and ok to have repeated properties:

<Description about="book">
  <dc:Author>Pierre-Antoine </dc:Author>
  <dc:Author>Jonas</dc:Author>
</Description>

It's ok if the property is designed to be used either as a repeated
property or with a container. The two variations are not exactly
equvivalent.

In your example with the Seq, you don't say that you are a author. It is
the SEQUENCE that is the author. You happen to be a member of that
Sequence, but that doesn't make you an author.

On the other hand, in my version with the repeated properties, it is said
that you are a author.


That's why it's not all that bad if you have to choose how the predicate
is to be used.
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2000 09:22:33 GMT

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