Re: Determination of subjects/objects

Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> Ben, I remember I was surprised when realizing that, too. But, just to
> really separate the issues, I do not believe this has anything to do
> with the collection issue. The very same happens with
> 
> <span rel="a:b" about="#b">asasfas</span>

Right, so this is why I think my rules are wrong, because the above
should, in my mind, yield:

<#b> a:b _:span0

(where _:span0 can be the subject of other triples nested within the SPAN).

> <> a:b #b.

Yeah, I definitely think that's wrong. So my rules are wrong.

> I am not saying this is not confusing, I am just saying that this is
> _not_ related to the collection syntactic sugar.

Indeed, you're right.

> I do believe that (1) "_:" will be very rarely used and for RDF people
> only but (2) in some edge cases it is difficult to avoid it. Any other
> syntactic solution would lead to real complications I believe, and I
> also believe that getting a sequence of anonymous and untyped bnodes is
> sometimes necessary...

Remember that we agreed that we would not try to represent all of RDF in
RDFa, and especially we would not try to represent everything in nice
syntactic sugar form... we would only do well motivated use cases.

I am *very* wary of introducing "_:" for this limited use case,
especially since I haven't seen strong motivating examples that couldn't
be expressed in other ways (slightly clunkier, but not requiring new
syntax.)

So, this requires more thought. I'm really not sold on "_:"

-Ben

Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 17:56:48 UTC