- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:12:08 -0700
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Dan Connolly wrote: > > > I believe so too, but the compatibility issues look hairy. > > > > > 2. It isn't clear whether containers (particularly sequences) can > > > have 'gaps' or not. > > > > We decided (1) the spec is indeed unlear here, to > > the point of erroneous; (2) they can have gaps; > > hmm... at least: I thought we did; > > I don't see it in the issues list... and I've reviewed > > the meeting records back to May. > > > > Where the heck did it go? > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#attention-developers > >On 8th June 2001 the WG decided that an RDF model may contain partial >descriptions of >a container. Thus an RDF model is not contrained to have the >containermembership >properties contiguous starting from rdf:_1. I understand that, but that still leaves open the issue that I was raising, which is: given that it doesn't have the properties contiguous, what does that entail? Are the 'missing' elements really there (but not mentioned), or are they genuinely not there? So in my example, if xxx rdf:_1 aaa xxx rdf:_3 ccc does xxx have two, or at least three, members? Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 15:11:01 UTC