- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:16:21 +0200
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <46E41C55.8060007@w3.org>
Mark Birbeck wrote: > Ah...I think I see what's happening. :) > > You are right that we need an extra flag, but I'd suggest we add one > called 'recurse'. You seem to have changed the meaning of my > 'chaining' flag to fit recursion, and now you need to add another flag > for 'change resource'; but that is exactly what the 'chaining' flag > already does, so it seems just as easy to add a 'recurse' flag. > > Are you ok with that Ivan? I'm basically saying that you are spot on > with the problem that you describing, but that the problem doesn't > actually really relate to chaining, but to recursion. We therefore > need a flag to inhibit recursion under the conditions you are > describing (when any nested mark-up serves as a literal). > Ah, o.k., I did not realize that. Yes, you are right. I interpreted your 'chaining' flag as a control to recursion! :-) Ivan > Regards, > > Mark > > On 09/09/2007, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> My apologies not to have realized that in my earlier mail. >> >> The current description relies on the value of [chaining] for setting >> the value of [current resource] to [current object resource]. That does >> not apply any more if what I say below is correct. >> >> Maybe not the most elegant, but the way I see solving this is to use yet >> another flag, called [change resource]. Using this flag, two changes: >> >> - The 3rd item in 3rd step currently says: >> >> "If any triples are generated then the [chaining] flag is set to true." >> >> which should be changed to >> >> "If any triples are generated then the [change resource] flag is set to >> true." >> >> - 4th step should say: >> >> 4. If the [change resource] flag is set to true then the [current >> resource] is set to the value of the [current object resource], and the >> [change resource] flag is set to false. >> >> I know I do not refer to @instanceof in this mail, but I will describe >> in my next mail why:-) >> >> >> Ivan >> >> >> Ivan Herman wrote: >>> To make the versioning clear, this is a comment on >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070906/ >>> >>> on Section 4.3, Processing >>> >>> At present, the flag [chaining] is bound to @rel, @rev, or @instanceof. >>> The processing steps say that _if_ any of those attributes generate >>> valid triples, (2nd and 3rd item in the 3rd step), then the [chaining] >>> flag is set to True. Otherwise it is False (although this latter is not >>> explicitly said in the text). I am not sure that is correct. Inspired by >>> Mark's beloved example:-): >>> >>> <span property="a:bla" rel="p:q" resource="http://a.b.c">Einstein said >>> E=mc<sup>2</sup></span> >>> >>> This will generate the triples >>> >>> <> p:q <http://a.b.c>; >>> a:bla "Einstein said E=mc<sup>2</sup>"^^rdfs:XMLLiteral. >>> >>> which is fine, but I do not think that chaining should go beyond the >>> <span> element in this case. Put it in an informal way, [current object >>> literal] has already provided for a correct interpretation of that >>> content... >>> >>> I think the correct way of saying this is that: >>> >>> - [chaining] is set to True by default when entering processing [current >>> element] >>> - [chaining] is set to False, if >>> - no @content attribute is present >>> - any triples are generated using the [current object literal], ie, >>> first item in 3rd step. >>> >>> 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, 9 September 2007 16:16:27 UTC