- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:44:00 -0000
- To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham, Thanks for taking the time to have a look. I like your proposal for handling rdf:_li as an attribute. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org] > Sent: 31 January 2001 18:03 > To: Dave Beckett; Brian McBride > Cc: RDF interest group > Subject: Containers > > > I finally took a look at: > > >[3] A Proposed Interpretation of RDF Containers - > > http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/rdf/issues/containersyntax/ > > and think it does a pretty good job of cleaning up the > messier container > issues. I have come to view the RDFM&S constructs as useful, > convenient > ways to present containers whose contents are presented > complely within a > single document. > > > A comment, for your consideration, concerning rdf:li as an attribute: > > Since you allow (example 3): > > [http://foo, rdf:_1, "1"] > [http://foo, rdf:_1, "1 again"] > > why not just map rdf:li as an attribute to rdf:_1? Then > example 4 would be: > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://badExample" > rdf:li="a" rdf:_3="b"/> > > will generate: > > [http://badExample, rdf:_1, "a"] > [http://badExample, rdf:_3, "b"] > > and doesn't have to be viewed as a "bad example". > > #g >
Received on Friday, 2 February 2001 08:44:09 UTC