Re: Common RDF parser bug?

"Thomas B. Passin" wrote:

> On the other hand, I think that Brian's and David's interest in allowing
> statements with multiple predicate/object pairs (I hope I have understood
> them correctly) 

Not quite - this thread started because I noticed that the RDF Validator
accepts _multiple_ subject/predicate/object properties in a reification,
which does not appear to be permitted in the Model & Syntax
specification.

The thread seems to have to gone off on another topic, that of _less
than one_ of some of the s/p/o properties in a reification - partial
description.

> is something I could support, because it is such an obvious
> shorthand for multiple statements about the same subject that it doesn't
> seem to do violence to the current RDF model.

You would need to be able to disambiguate the predicates and objects
(and forbid more than one subject) to do that, I think. Or allow mutiple
predicates or multiple objects but not both.  But in any case it needs
to be clarified what such a construct should be interpreted as meaning;
the meaning is undefined/invalid according to the current specification,
I think.

I am also concerned that some people are suggesting meanings that imply
that one could not process RDF without having an inference engine to
sort out such constructs; it would not be possible to handle RDF in
general with just an RDF parser. 

Regards,

David.

-- 
/d{def}def/u{dup}d[0 -185 u 0 300 u]concat/q 5e-3 d/m{mul}d/z{A u m B u
m}d/r{rlineto}d/X -2 q 1{d/Y -2 q 2{d/A 0 d/B 0 d 64 -1 1{/f exch d/B
A/A z sub X add d B 2 m m Y add d z add 4 gt{exit}if/f 64 d}for f 64 div
setgray X Y moveto 0 q neg u 0 0 q u 0 r r r r fill/Y}for/X}for showpage