Re: testcase for the option for collections

[...]

> > 1/ using namespace xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
>
> That seems to introduce a dependency from RDF syntax to RDF schema.
> I'd rather not do that.
>
> A new namespace would be the cleanest option, but I think on
> balance, if we're going to change the syntax, we might as
> well use this namespace for first/rest/nil/List.
>
>   http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#

that's indeed better and I've updated the testcase
(see attachements)

> I'm also uneasy about leaving the semantics of first/rest
> 'incomplete' at the RDF level; i.e. allowing layered
> specs to constrain their extents further. I think I can live with
> it, but I'd feel better if I had a more clear picture
> of the rdfms-assertion and MIME type issues.

I was also wondering about rdf:item versus owl:item

> > 2/ using attribute rdf:parseType="collection"
>
> works for me.
>
> > 3/ just use rdf:Description for collected items
>
> of course, you can use any typednode, right?

right, and then we have some extra triples

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

(See attached file: test001.rdf)(See attached file: test001.nt)