- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:25:59 -0500
- To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote: > - @rel's subject is either @about or the 'inherited' resource coming > from the parent > - @rev's subject is the resource sent 'down' to through the chaining > (and taken into account, via inheritance, by the children) I took some time to look at how Ivan's @trel/@trev proposal would affect the test cases. Overall, his proposal makes the issues that we've been having with @instanceof easier to address. The following approved test cases would have to be changed based on Ivan's @trel/@trev proposal: #49, #50, #52, #53 and #1001. #49 - @instanceof changes to @trel #50 - @instanceof changes to @trev #52 - @instanceof changes to @trev #53 - @instanceof changes to @trev #1001 - @instanceof changes to @trel The following on-hold test cases could be resolved based on Ivan's @trel/@trev proposal: #46, #47, #48, and #51. #46 - @instanceof changes to @trev #47 - @instanceof changes to @trev #48 - @instanceof changes to @trel #51 - @instanceof changes to @trel (possible issue with SPARQL?) Every test case seems to transition quite easily to Ivan's scheme and it doesn't look like there would be a great deal of disagreement like there is currently for @instanceof. Additionally, it would allow us to support all of the use cases that Ben has outlined as being important. There don't seem to be any nasty side-effects that I can see. A couple of observations that I don't know if Ivan intended or not: - @trel never causes the creation of a new bnode. @trel always has a subject, if nothing else - it's the current document. - @trev causes the creation of a new bnode, sometimes, but the results are a bit confusing based on Ivan's explanation. This could be an issue, such as in Test Case #51, if we are to have the same functionality as @instanceof. While @trel never creating a new bnode is not an issue, @trev not creating a new bnode at times might be an issue. From what I understand, @instanceof will create a new bnode and start chaining in the following instance: <body> <p instanceof="foaf:Document" property="foaf:topic">John Doe</p> </body> In the case above, the following triples should be created, per the SPARQL in Test Case #51: <> <foaf:topic> "John Doe" . _:bn0 a <foaf:Document> . Using Ivan's proposal, if we replace @instanceof with @trel, we get the following triples: <> <foaf:topic> "John Doe" ; a <foaf:Document> . If we replace @instanceof with @trev, we get the same triples, I think? Is this wrong, Ivan? Does the following create a new bnode or not? <span trev="a:b" /> If not, how do we create a new bnode to start chaining? Or, more precisely, what happens in this case: <body> <p property="foaf:topic">John Doe </p> <span trev="foaf:Document" /> </body> The confusion came in when you stated this: > <span about="#a" rel="foaf:knows" trev="foaf:Person"> > yields > <#a> foaf:knows [ rdf:type foaf:Person ]. and then followed it up with this: > Note that > <span about="#a" trel="a:b"> > and > <span about="#a" trev="a:b"> > yield, actually, the same triples because, according our rules, <#a> > will be sent 'down' to the children. Those two rules seem to be in conflict with one another? For example, this: <span about="#a" trel="a:b"> would generate this <#a> a <a:b> . and <span about="#a" trev="a:b"> should generate this? _:bn0 a <a:b> . That's really the only issue I could find with Ivan's @trel/@trev proposal so far. It's not a major issue, it just needs some clarification. -- manu -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Over One Million Songs Available on Bitmunk http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2007/10/29/one-million-songs-on-bitmunk/
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 07:26:09 UTC