Re: Misleading note about extensibiity of Collection syntax

I agree -- I think a parser's behaviour should be completely defined by 
-rdf-syntax-, and not dependent of knowledge of 
rdf-schema.  Schema-awareness should be a separate issue.  In this context, 
I define "parser" as something that converts RDF syntax to an RDF graph model.

I think this issue is an example of a problem with the RDF syntax, in that 
interpretation of <li> tags within a collection is dependent on knowing 
that the container is a collection.  (This showed up as a problem with 
something that was proposed in the CC/PP WG.)  I believe the issue serves 
to restrict the ways in which RDF classes may practically be used to 
structure information representations.


At 12:53 PM 8/3/00 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>I think this is bogus:
>"Note: The RDF Schema specification [RDFSCHEMA] also defines
>a mechanism to declare additional subclasses of these container
>types, in which case production [18] is extended to include the
>names of those declared subclasses."
>For example, consider:
>         xmlns="#"
>         xmlns:rdf=""
>         xmlns:rdfs=""
>         >
>  <rdf:li>foo</rdf:li>
><rdfs:Class id="#MyContainer">
>   <rdfs:subClassOf
>     rdf:resource=""/>
>Is an RDF 1.0 parser expected to parse MyContainer
>as a typednode or as a container? The note suggests
>container... but suppose the statement that
>MyContainer is a Container were in some document
>linked from this one, and that document's source
>was questionable, and I don't necessarily trust it.
>Does the model I get from this document depend
>on whether I trust some other document? I hope not.
>Dan Connolly, W3C

Graham Klyne

Received on Monday, 7 August 2000 12:43:06 UTC