- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:51:19 +0200
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <46A70F07.30507@w3.org>
Garret, I think what Sandro refers to is the difference between the RDF model and the particular syntax called RDF/XML. 1- in the RDFS specification, the range of rdfs:first is rdfs:Resource[1]. Ie, everything, including literals. 2- in RDF/XML there is no problem in spelling out a list using literals <rdfs:List> <rdfs:first>Bla bla bla</rdf:first> <rdfs:rest> <rdfs:List> <rdsf:first>Bla again</rdfs:first> <rdfs:rest rdf:resource=".....nil"/> </rdfs:List> </rdfs:rest> </rdfs:List> 3- The particular syntactic simplification rule in RDF/XML using @rdf:parseType has indeed the limitation of referring to resources only, ie, one cannot write: <some:property rdf:parseType="Collection"> "Bla bla bla" "Bla again" </some:property> 4- Other serializations of RDF might be more accommodating. Ie, in Turtle, it is perfectly o.k. to write <> some:property ("Bla bla bla" "Bla again"). I realize that RDF/XML is a bit heavy for this (too:-), but I hope it explains what Sandro meant... Ivan [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_first Garret Wilson wrote: > > Sandro, > > Sandro Hawke wrote: >> To be clear, an rdf:List can have literals, it's just that >> parseType=Collection cannot be used with such lists. >> >> I'm curious why you prefer rdf:value for this workaround instead of >> owl:sameAs.... > > Can you explain this some more? I'm always on the lookout to improve my > kludges with better kludges... ;) > > Garret > -- 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 Wednesday, 25 July 2007 08:51:21 UTC