W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: (tentative) container model proposal

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:43:15 -0500
Message-Id: <v0421010ab756b9d44bd4@[]>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>:
>Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> wrote:
> > Containers are also, as you point out, syntactically privileged in the RDF
> > syntax specification. But then, so is the rdf:type construct: we can write
> > <wn:Person foaf:name="dan"/> instead of a more verbose piece of XML,
> > because the RDF syntax provides sugar for common idioms. The container
> > machinery in the syntax is in the same category...
>I disagree, I do not see them in the same category. The typedNode construct
>is clearly very useful for a number of purposes. It makes things clearer and
>less labor-intensive. Furthermore, there is unlikely to be need for an
>alternate version of "type" so providing one in the spec is a reasonably
>safe bet. Last of all, the typedNode syntax is difficult to confuse with
>other syntaxes, where as the rdf:li construct appears like just another
>propertyElt (in fact, it seems as if Mozilla treats it this way).
>My goal is to reduce the complication and number of "exceptions to the
>rules" in the RDF spec. I feel this is important for wide adoption of the
>spec, and best benefits the HTML authors I represent on behalf of the HWG.
>And I do not feel that:
>    <rdf:li>a</rdf:li>
>    <rdf:li>b</rdf:li>
>    <rdf:li>c</rdf:li>
>is simpler or more intuitive than:
>    <rdf:_1>a</rdf:_1>
>    <rdf:_2>b</rdf:_2>
>    <rdf:_3>c</rdf:_3>

Surely the point is not simplicity or intuitiveness, but saying less. 
The second one specifies the ordering of the elements; the first does 
not. (Goodness knows why anyone would want to not specify the 
ordering of an ordered container, but it is meaningful to do so.)

>Nor do I feel that it is intuitive for:
>    <rdf:li>a</rdf:li>
>    <rdf:li>b</rdf:li>
>    <rdf:li>c</rdf:li>
>to generate:
>  _:genid rdf:type rdf:Bag .
>  _:genid rdf:_1 "a" .
>  _:genid rdf:_2 "b" .
>  _:genid rdf:_3 "c" .

As far as that goes, what do rdf:_n's mean when applied to a bag? 
Bags are UNordered, right? So it isnt even meaningful to talk about 
the 2nd item in a bag.

Seems to me that it would be rational to only use rdf:li on bags and 
only use rdf:_n's on seqs, but this may not be an available option at 
this stage.

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 16:43:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:01 UTC