- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:19:33 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
pat hayes wrote: [...] > > I have a question about this proposal. It says: > > 3) rdf:li processing > > This description of rdf:li processing is described in > terms of an implementation. Parsers are not required > to implement it this way, but however they implement > it, the effect should be the same as if it had been > implemented as described here. > > rdf:li, when it is encountered in the propName (6.14) > production, is transformed to an ordinal property, i.e. > one of rdf:_1, rdf:_2 etc. > > It is transformed to the successor of the last ordinal > property encountered within the current element. If > this is the first ordinal property encountered within > the current element, then .... > > My question is, do 'when it is encountered' and 'last ordinal > property encountered' refer to the time-sequence in which the > encounterings occur, and doesn't that depend on the implementation > details of the parser? And if so, what does the requirement in the > first paragraph even mean? As I understand things, in XML the order of elements in a document is significant, i.e. <foo:bar>1</foo:bar> <foo:bar>2</foo:bar> is not the same document as: <foo:bar>2</foo:bar> <foo:bar>1</foo:bar> So really the proposal is saying that the rdf:li's are processed in document order. Note that this is not true for attributes on elements. Thus <foo:bar rdf:_1="1" rdf:_2="2"/> is the 'same' document as: <foo:bar rdf:_2="2" rdf:_1="1"/> and that is the reason for the second problem I acknowedged in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0122.html The first paragraph is basically acknowledging that the proposal as given is written in procedural terms, and that it should be re-written in a declarative style. > > If 'encountered' has some more technical meaning in this context > which makes it clear from the syntax what order the encountering has > to happen, then it might be better to state the ordering in those > terms (?) Yes. I agree. Now if I could just get an hour or two ... Brian
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 06:21:13 UTC