- From: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:01:57 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> At 10:31 AM 5/21/01 +0100, David Allsopp wrote:
> >They may not make sense though - what about collections? If you remove
> >the rdf:type property then the collection isn't valid RDF. If you remove
> >the rdf:_2 property leaving only _1 and _3 then I guess the collection
> >isn't valid. So the triples are not all independent. This is a problem
> >of RDF in general, not N3 though.
>
> I don't see that removing rdf:type makes it invalid RDF.
M&S says "this [collection] resource *must* be declared to be an
instance of one of the container object types defined above" (my
emphasis).
In addition, if we don't know what type of collection it is, we can't
always handle it correctly - in some cases we might want to merge Bags
or Alternatives (by renumbering) but this might not make sense for
Sequences; or the order of merging might be significant, or we might
want to render them differently in a graphical RDF viewer, etc.
> I do tend to agree that rdf:_1 and friends are a problem, for the reasons
> you suggest. I think Dave Beckett and Brian McBride's interpretation of
> containers [1] reasonably overcomes this.
It's certainly an improvement, yes.
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
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 04:06:20 UTC