- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:13:24 -0000
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> - M&S is contradictory and has widely varying implementations of its > reification syntax. The important test cases are: [1] <RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:a="http://example.org/" > <rdf:Description> <rdf:value rdf:ID="foo" a:foo="bar"/> </rdf:Description> </RDF> [2] <RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:a="http://example.org/" > <rdf:Description> <rdf:value rdf:ID="foo" rdf:parseType="Resource"/> </rdf:Description> </RDF> [3] <RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:a="http://example.org/" > <rdf:Description> <rdf:value rdf:ID="foo" rdf:bagID="bag"/> </rdf:Description> </RDF> The current WD (which is like a reading of M&S giving priority to para232 over para214) has [1] as identifying the object resource, and [2] as identifying the reification and [3] as undefined. M&S with the priority-reading gives [3] as reification. No implementations that I know of implement M&S with the priority-reading in that if [1] is reification then so is [3]. (No - I haven't checked SiRPAC - this might do it). Some implementations have [1] as reification (e.g. RDFFilter; http://rdfstoredemo.jrc.it/ ), some have [2] as identifying the object resource (e.g. VRP, http://wonkituck.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/rdfs.html ). Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 10:14:04 UTC