[Fwd: RDF/XML Containers: Syntax & Semantics]

Vassilis and Karsten,

Thanks for this.  This is exactly the sort of message that should be sent to 
www-rdf-comments@w3.org for formal communication to the WG.  I've taken the 
liberty of forwarding it there to ensure the comment is not missed.

I'm itching to respond, but I should leave that to the document editor, so I shall.

Brian


-------- Original Message --------
From: - Wed Oct 24 15:44:26 2001
X-UIDL: AAA7kRzAAAwnF0MCgBgdoGB1kU0hhOhX
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Received: from 0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 
0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) 
id VKKFFVQV; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:48:08 +0100
Received: from 15.144.59.2 by 0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall 
NT); Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:48:08 +0100
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])	by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 
(PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id PAA05554;	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 
15:48:06 +0100 (BST)
Received: from www19.w3.org (www19.w3.org [18.29.0.19])	by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 
(PHNE_22672)/HPLabs Bristol Relay) with ESMTP id PAA20101;	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:47:50 +0100 
(BST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)	by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id KAA27528;	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])	by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA27495 
for <www-rdf-interest@www19.w3.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ext1.ics.forth.gr (mailgate.ics.forth.gr [139.91.1.2])	by tux.w3.org 
(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05177	for <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 
10:39:19 -0400
Received: from ismene.ics.forth.gr (mailhost.ics.forth.gr [139.91.157.51])	by ext1.ics.forth.gr 
(8.9.3/ICS-FORTH/V8.2.5-GATE) with ESMTP id RAA16126;	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:38:37 +0300 (EET DST)
Received: from athena.ics.forth.gr (athena.ics.forth.gr [139.91.183.30]) by 
ismene.ics.forth.gr (8.8.8/ICS-FORTH/V3) with ESMTP id RAA04950; Wed, 24 Oct 
2001 17:38:46 +0300 (EET DST)
Received: (from christop@localhost)	by athena.ics.forth.gr (8.9.3/ICS-FORTH/V8.2.2C-INTNULL) id RAA10428;	Wed, 
24 Oct 2001 17:36:11 +0300 (EEST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id: <200110241439.KAA27528@www19.w3.org>
Posted-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:38:46 +0300 (EET DST)
Organization:
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:36:11 +0300 (EEST)
Message-Id: <200110241436.RAA10428@athena.ics.forth.gr>
From: Vassilis Christophides <christop@ics.forth.gr>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
CC: "Karsten Tolle" <tolle@dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Reply-to: christop@ics.forth.gr (Vassilis Christophides)
Subject: RDF/XML Containers: Syntax & Semantics
Resent-From: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> archive/latest/4864
X-Loop: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sender: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <www-rdf-interest.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Hi,

We are currently exploring the 'Refactoring RDF/XML Syntax'
(http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/) and the corresponding test
cases for the 'rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity'. Our remark concerns
the translation of the rdf:li to the rdf:_nnn elements. There is no
rule given to do so.

a) In the test cases we can find the mixture of using rdf:li and
rdf:_nnn elements. The existence of the rdf:_n elements has no effect
on the translation, as shown in the test cases. Given the proposed
translation we may encountered the following cases:

1)

<rdf:Seq rdf:ID="myseq" rdf:li="a" rdf:_1="b"/>

which would create the triples:

[rdf:Type, myseq, rdf:Seq],
[rdf:_1, myseq, "a"],
[rdf:_1, myseq, "b"]

2)

<rdf:Seq rdf:ID="myseq">
  <rdf:_1/>
  <rdf:li />
  <rdf:_2/>
</rdf:Seq>

Semantically this would mean for the sequence 'myseq' there are two
elements at the first position! What is the underlying semantics for
sequences?

In order to avoid these inconsistencies it should be better to
disallow the mixture of the rdf:_nnn and rdf:li elements inside one
typedNode. Do we really need both elements or wouldn't be sufficient
to use the rdf:_nnn element?

b) In the test case Nr. 5 the counting goes on even outside the
typedNode element. While in test case Nr. 8 there is a reset for the
counting. The second sounds more reasonable but at least it should be
consistent.

Best regards

Karsten Tolle

Vassilis Christophides

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 15:12:35 UTC