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

Re: [RDF] Re: tracing statement origin (was Re: I have a trouble with The RDF Model)

From: Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:16:12 -0800
Message-ID: <3A23E85C.ED1F1E2F@jfinity.com>
To: "www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
CC: Wraf development <rdf@uxn.nu>
Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> [plea: can we keep this RDF model discussion on just one list - the
> RDF Interest Group list - RDF-IG?  I'm getting 2-3 copies of every
> message in these threads.  RDF-IG is the main RDF list.]

I agree. My previous message had wraf-rdf and rdf-interest as the only
lists. I didn't want to remove wraf since Jonas had added it and its
his list :-). 

<snip />

> There seem to be some slight typos in your example:

Sorry about that. The url for the source document was pretty funky
too. Hopefully my intent was pretty clear though.

<snip />

> The last one probably should be
>   <rdf:Description rdf:ID="res3" rdf:bagID="stat_bag3">
>     <prop3 rdf:ID="stat3">another value</prop3>
>   </rdf:Description>
> 
> i.e. introducing stat_bag3 mentioned below and ending prop3 correctly
> 
> And the resulting file (when given rdf:RDF wrapper) parses OK with
> Redland+Repat and produces pretty-much the following triples (same
> count, didn't check they were exactly identical).

It would be a nice exercise to try this out on the various parsers.
Stefan Kokkelink has added an amended version of this syntax example
to his online parser demonstration [1] for Cara as example E9. He
hasn't added the rdf:bagID to last description (stat_bag3) which as
you inferred was my intent. 

<snip of generated statements for fully labeled syntax />

> Is the above:
> 
>   Happening because you explicity added bagID attributes to every
>   typedNode / Description (/container?)  [True, in existing apps.]
> 
>   Happens anyway with generated IDs anyway when you don't give bagIDs
>   [Not necessarily true in current apps.]
> 
> or you are proposing that this is the interpretation?  I do like
> these ideas and would support that, as a standard interpretation.

Explicitly adding bagID seems to trigger the reification in most
(all?) current parsers. Presence of property ID triggers it in some.
In addition, some current parsers provide a configuration setting to
cause the riefication and bagification of statements without explicit
bagID and property ID ("show bags for each description block" in the
Cara demonstration). 

As you say, I am proposing that we assume that a conformant parser
must generate the bags and reified statements. Once we take that step
we can then discuss how to provide straightforward and efficient API
and implementations based on a standard interpretation.

Gabe

[1] http://zoe.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE/RDF/parser.html
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 11:16:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT