- From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:06:17 -0000
- To: "'Ayalew Kassahun'" <A.Kassahun@InfoRay.NL>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>> 1 - I do not understand why Redland 'reifies' statement with ID 'res1'?! >> Redland: 3: (file#stat_bag1, [1], file#1) 4: (anon: file#1, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Statement)??? 5: (anon: file#1, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#subject, file#res1) 6: (anon: file#1, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#predicate, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type) 7: (anon: file#1, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#object, http//myNS.org#typedNode) since your typedNode <typedNode rdf:ID="" rdf:bagID=""> is shorthand for Description <Description rdf:ID="" rdf:bagID="" rdf:type="typedNode">, and is not a property. I think the processor is treating <typedNode.../> as a property instead of syntactic sugar for a description. I don't know why Redland creates and stuffs the refication in stat_bag either. >> 2 - I do not understand why Redland and CARA 'reify' statement stat3. This seems to me wrong.?! >> 11: <rdf:Description rdf:ID="res3"> 12: <prop3 rdf:ID="stat3">another value</prop3> 13: </rdf:Description> You've almost answered your own question. stat3 is a resource that *reifies* "a statement": it is *not* "a statement". Whenever you see a construct like <prop3 rdf:ID="stat3">another value</prop3>, that implies rdf:ID="stat3" stands for the enclosing statement by way of reifying it, simply by virtue of being the value of an rdf:ID attribute of a property element. That description may be non-intuitive though: "every ID attribute of a property results in a reified statement" as Stefan put it, is straightforward (Sirpac seems to have missed it btw). > 3 - SiRPAC seems to be inconsistent here - stat1 is reified and but not stat2 Looks like a bug to me along with missing the stat3. -Bill Aside: While none of the processors are mature, it's interesting that they all give out different triples. If the current syntax is going to remain normative, a conformance suite from the wg would be useful. That way we could begin to think about unit testing processors. This syntax, gaaahh! ----- Bill de hÓra : InterX : bdehora@interx.com
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2001 08:32:04 UTC