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

Re: Container in RDF Schema

From: Saied Tazari <Saied.Tazari@zgdv.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:51:05 +0200
Message-ID: <3B61C629.7B780B21@zgdv.de>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Aaron Swartz schrieb:
> On Friday, July 27, 2001, at 05:46  AM, Andrei S. Lopatenko wrote:
> > But how to say that it is a Bag of person-project?
> This is a known issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-constraining-containers

Why can't we handle containers transparently?  I mean, we can say the
range of a property must be of some type and leave it free to specify
arbitrary number of objects of that type for the property in a
concrete case.  If no or only one object is specified, it is
unambiguous.  If more than one objects are specified, from the type of
the used container we can understand if they are alternative objects,
a set of objects, or a list of objects.  To have a control on the
number of objects there could be some properties such as
rdfs:cardinality, rdfs:maxCardinality, and rdfs:minCardinality all
three with rdfs:domain equal to rdf:Property and rdfs:range equal to
xsd:nonNegativeInteger.  To control the type of the possible
container, we can have another property such as rdfs:containerType
with domain equal to rdf:Property and range equal to rdfs:Container. 
To my mind, none of these 4 proposed properties are needed in the case
of alternative values, because a single value is logically equivalent
with only one alternative.  On the other hand if some user finds an
rdf:Alt as value she only needs some policy to choose the most
appropriate one but finally she has to use only one of the alternative
values.  Do I miss anything?


-- Saied
Received on Friday, 27 July 2001 15:51:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:37 UTC