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

Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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. 
I agree that step 10 is not relevant to this discussion.  I was 
conflating two issues.  Sorry!
> 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
I believe this is what Mark intended, and it enables the (edge) case 
that you can stop chaining by inserting an empty rel, which was 
something we had discussed at one time.
>
> #5 comes into effect otherwise
>
> Hm. Is such a change editorial or does it send us back to LC2?
I think it is certainly editorial.  I am not certain that it makes Ben 
or Mark happy though.  I personally don't care what the answer is.  I 
would also be happy with changing text in section 5.4.3 by adding to the 
end of the conditions "Regardless of the datatype of the attribute, if 
evaluation of the attribute value for CURIEs and URIs results in no 
valid URIs, a conforming processor MUST behave as if the element has no 
specification of the attribute (e.g., as if there is no entry for the 
attribute in the DOM tree at all)." 

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Received on Friday, 9 May 2008 17:05:06 UTC