- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:11:03 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian, This seems fine to me. To my mind, an essential feature of your proposal was the way that it reduced <rdf:li> to a piece of syntactic sugar. Thus, I would have expected your example: > <rdf:Bag> > <rdf:li>1</rdf:li> > <foo:ten>10</foo:ten> > <rdf:li>11</rdf:li> > </rdf:Bag> To yield: > _:genid <rdf:type> <rdf:Bag>. > _:genid <rdf:_1> "1" . > _:genid <foo:ten> "10" . > _:genid <rdf:_2> "11" . So either way works for me, but in light of this example your revised proposal might be slightly less surprising (a Good Thing). (Hmmm... is that what you *meant* to put for your final example?) #g -- At 04:37 PM 6/13/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >Brian McBride wrote: > > > > With respect to action: > > > > AP: 2001-06-08#3: Brian McBride: pick up on the syntax issues now the > > model details have been clarified. > > > > from last weeks teleconference, I would like to propose the attached > > McBride/Beckett proposal for parsing containers. This proposal was > circulated > > on RDF Interest in December 2000 > >With respect to that proposal, I realised that it suffers from a similar >problem >to the one that Dan Connolly pointed out in: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0017.html > >The proposal specifically allows for representing partial descriptions of >containers using the rdf:li syntax. For example: > > <rdf:Bag> > <rdf:li>1</rdf:li> > <rdf:_10>10</rdf:li> > <rdf:li>11</rdf:li> > </rdf:Bag> > >will generate (please excuse the abbreviation): > > _:genid <rdf:type> <rdf:Bag>. > _:genid <rdf:_1> "1" . > _:genid <rdf:_10> "10" . > _:genid <rdf:_11> "11" . > >In essence, rdf:li translates to rdf:_nnn where nnn is one more than the last >rdf:_mmm encountered in the element. > >Now consider property foo:ten which is a subproperty of rdf:_10. > > <rdf:Bag> > <rdf:li>1</rdf:li> > <foo:ten>10</rdf:li> > <rdf:li>11</rdf:li> > </rdf:Bag> > >What triples does the above example generate. Either the parser has to >process >subPropertyOf relations, or it will generate a different set of triples >from the >first example. > >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 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. > >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> > >I'd welcome feedback from the WG on which way they would like me to proceed >as I write up the test cases. > >Brian ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 13:27:17 UTC