- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:14:57 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote: [...] > I think therefore there is a case to be made for simplifying this aspect of > the proposal so that rdf:li elements within a description are translated to > rdf:_nnn where nnn starts at 1 and is incremented by one for each rdf:li > encountered. Yes, no more special cases than that, please. In particular, this rule can be implemented straightforwardly using XPath; something like: count(previous-sibling::rdf:li). > 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" . > > This solution also neatly ducks the issue of what do to with: > > <rdf:Bag rdf:_1="1" rdf:_2="2"> > <rdf:li>?</rdf:li> > </rdf:Bag> yup. (by "ducks" you don't mean "does not answer", right? it *does* provide an answer in that case, right? _:genid <rdf:type> <rdf:Bag>. _:genid <rdf:_1> "1" . _:genid <rdf:_2> "2" . _:genid <rdf:_1> "?" . That's an inconsistency, since _1 is functional and "?" <> "1". But inconsistency isn't a syntax issue. ) > I'd welcome feedback from the WG on which way they would like me to proceed > as I write up the test cases. > > Brian -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 12:16:09 UTC