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

RE: Container Resources and Reified statement - which is the corr ect parser out there?

From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:06:17 -0000
Message-ID: <23CF4BF2C499D411907E00508BDC95E131F84B@ntmews_01.interx.com>
To: "'Ayalew Kassahun'" <A.Kassahun@InfoRay.NL>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

 1 - I do not understand why Redland 'reifies' statement with ID 'res1'?!


3: (file#stat_bag1, [1], file#1)
4: (anon: file#1, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type,
5:  (anon: file#1, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#subject,
6:  (anon: file#1, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#predicate,
7:  (anon: file#1, http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#object,

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

Looks like a bug to me along with missing the stat3. 


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:34 UTC