- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Dan Connolly wrote: > 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 Good point. This needs to be preserved somewhere. This doesn't seem to be made explicit in DAML+OIL axioms btw, http://www.daml.org/2001/03/axiomatic-semantics.html though perhaps "f an object C is type “Container”, then C is a KIF list" does that job. > 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.) A possible home for this content within RDFCore's work might be in a cleanup of RDF SChema section 6., http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#mns "Model and Syntax concepts". > 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 Yep. > > > 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. You're right; I was over opinionated. I'm too jetlagged now to suggest a clean fixup, but I agree that issue summaries shouldn't contain their resolution. Danzzz
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 19:10:04 UTC