Re: ISSUE-120: Ambiguous Situation with nested @rel where inner @rel is neither CURIE nor link type

Shane,

I am not sure that step 10 is relevant in our discussion. What I mean 
is: step 10 is of course valid, but what it says is that it would 
complete those triples with [new subject] (if non-null). [new subject] 
is established in steps 4 or 5, depending on whether @rel/@rev have a 
valid URI set or not. Back to the previous issue... Ie, I am sorry, I 
still do not believe my interpretation is wrong...:-(

I tried to look at the possible changes if we want to achieve what Ben 
asks for. Here is one way, maybe:

#4 comes into effect if _no_ @rel/@rev are present, regardless of 
whether the value is valid or not

There is a #4a which comes into effect if @rel/@rev is present but they 
contain no valid URI-s; in which case the [new subject] is set to @about 
or a new BNode

#5 comes into effect otherwise

Hm. Is such a change editorial or does it send us back to LC2?

Ivan


Shane McCarron wrote:
> Ivan,
> 
> I apologize if I was too vague before...  Ben and I are aware of those 
> clauses and (I think) agree that is what they say.  However, step 10 of 
> the processing rules in the current editors draft indicates that any 
> incomplete triples are completed BEFORE the child elements are processed 
> by recursing.  
>               So, in the example we are contemplating:
> 
>> <div about="" rel="dc:creator">
>>     <img rel="myfoobarrel" href="ben.jpg" />
>> </div>
> The surrounding div has an incomplete triple.  That means it should dump 
> it, then process the child.  The @rel in the img element has no valid 
> CURIEs, so it sets no predicates.  As a result, The child has NO 
> triples.... so it should do nothing.  I am pretty sure that this is 
> actually what Mark intended.
> The reason I feel this is ambiguous is because 1) you misinterpreted it, 
> so others might too; and 2) I was unclear on the definition of the 
> phrase "valid @rel or @rev URI".  This is used in a couple of places, 
> and I know what it means...  actually if there were just a link back 
> from the processing rules where the phrase is used to the definition, 
> that would help a lot.
> So, to sum up...  I now believe we do NOT need to change the processing 
> rules.  However, I believe your interpretation is wrong and if there is 
> some way we can easily, editorially tighten the document so your 
> interpretation is harder for people to make, that would be good.
> 

-- 

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