- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:13:06 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > An argument can be made that reseting the count in this way is an example > of feature creep and would be best avoided. It provides more syntactic sugar > than the language described in M&S. It adds little value, creates > more work for implementors and creates confusion, as in the case outlined > above. I agree with your proposal, although I do not understand your test case results. You write: > This the example given above: > > <rdf:Bag> > <rdf:li>1</rdf:li> > <rdf:_10>10</rdf:li> > <rdf:li>11</rdf:li> > </rdf:Bag> > > would generate: > > _:genid <rdf:type> <rdf:Bag>. > _:genid <rdf:_1> "1" . > _:genid <rdf:_10> "10" . > _:genid <rdf:_11> "2" . > I think you mean: _:genid <rdf:type> <rdf:Bag>. _:genid <rdf:_1> "1" . _:genid <rdf:_10> "10" . _:genid <rdf:_2> "11" . is that correct? Personally, I want to see the rdf:li syntactic mechanism completely deprecated/removed at some point. But this is a good step there. -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com> ]
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 12:13:24 UTC