Re: (tentative) container model proposal

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