- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 17:54:53 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote: [...] > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> > > <rdf:Description> > > <rdf:_1>abc</rdf:_1> > > <rdf:_3>def</rdf:_3> > > </rdf:Description> > > </rdf:RDF> > > > > The simplest answer that meets my needs is: yes, that's > > an RDF document. The parts of the spec that suggest > > otherwise are an error. > > I agree. Would you support the removal of P189-193 from the "RDF formal > model" section of the spec? More or less, yes. In detail... I don't want to lose the axiom that rdf:_1 etc. are functional/unique properties: "For a single collection resource there may be at most one triple whose predicate is any given element of Ord" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#193 though I'm not sure I'm happy with the way that's stated; and it doesn't belong in this section (where we put axioms that are layered on top isn't clear. But this axiom definitely isn't part of the RDF model/abstract-syntax.) The rest of P189-193 seems either bogus (the bit about no gaps) or redundant w.r.t. the specification of container syntax starting at P209 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#209 > > To my mind, anything that suggest that containers are > > fundamental in any way -- that they are anything > > more than a standardized vocabulary of classes and > > properties and some syntactic sugar -- is an error. > > Indeed. > > > Now this doesn't resolve either of the active issues you > > own, danbri, so maybe I missed the gist of your proposal. > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema > > [ * danbri does some ACTION archaelogy ] [...] > Proposed issue summary: > > rdf-containers-formalmodel > [ > Parags 189-193 of M+S suggest a privileged role for RDF containers within > the formal model at the heart of RDF. Furthermore, they suggest > largely unimplemented (**need to hear about Jan's > implementation**) constraints, either on XML encodings of RDF, on other > (eg. database implementations) or on both. These paragraphs are either in > error (RDF does allow for partial descriptions) or editorially redundant: > in either case they should be removed. > ] The last sentence sounds more like a proposed for how to resolve it than a summary of the issue. I mostly agree, but (a) I found some novelty in the text and (b) the other issue summaries seem to relfect an attempt to make neutral summaries, without pre-judging the outcome. But yes, it's an issue and it's not subsumed by syntax-ambiguity nor syntax-vs-schema. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 18:55:01 UTC