Re: Yet another instanceof test

Sure. Any thoughts (you or anybody else) on the #0050 issue, though?

Ivan

(On his way back home, using the wireless in the NW lounge at Logan
airport in Boston. B.t.w.: they have now a free wireless!:-)

Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> Ivan,
> 
> Thanks. I'll add it to the Test Suite as soon as I'm back in office
> (currently at Whistler/Canada with a flaky wireless connection :)
> from 5 Nov on ...
> 
> Cheers,
>  Michael
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>  JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>  Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
> ---------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 12:49 PM
>> To: Hausenblas, Michael
>> Cc: W3C RDFa task force
>> Subject: Yet another instanceof test
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I attach yet another test that I believe addresses an issue 
>> not covered by the others. We had a discussion at some point 
>> on the list, and got to an agreement, that an 'instanceof' 
>> placed on the <html> element would automatically generate a 
>> type for the whole document by virtue of the fact that there 
>> is an implicit @about="" on the <html>.
>>
>> I am not sure that is crystal clear from the syntax document, 
>> although the initialization of the processing steps seems to 
>> refer to that.
>>
>> So I have a test that does that.
>>
>> I did not know what name you will give to the test, so the 
>> SPARQL file may have to be adapted.
>>
>> B.t.w. there is relationship of this feature with test #0050 
>> which deals
>> with:
>>
>> <p instanceof="b:c">...</p>
>>
>> ie, what happens if the @instanceof is alone. _I know_ it is 
>> not the same processing-wise if we say that there is an 
>> implicit @about="" on <html> via some sort of a preprocessing 
>> step (hm, I used the 'p' word, sorry about that:-) but for 
>> the user it surely looks the same. On the other hand, the 
>> approved behaviour of #0050 is to create a blank node and 
>> apply @rdf:type on that one, rather than on the inherited context.
>>
>> Either we should make that extra @about on <html> much more 
>> explicit in the text (maybe with a separate example) or maybe 
>> we have to come back on the #0050 case. The former is 
>> obviously easier:-)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ivan
>> -- 
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Sunday, 28 October 2007 21:47:31 UTC