W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2001

RE: Containers

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:44:00 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F2395ED@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
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 GMT

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