- From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:03:13 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
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. #g -- 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." > >-- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#containers > >For example, consider: > ><rdf:RDF > xmlns="#" > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" > > ><MyContainer> > <rdf:li>foo</rdf:li> ></MyContainer> > ><rdfs:Class id="#MyContainer"> > <rdfs:subClassOf > rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Container"/> ></rdfs:Class> > ></rdf:RDF> > >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 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 7 August 2000 12:43:06 UTC