- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 02 May 2002 13:02:46 -0500
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
www-rdf-comments, please consider this as an interpretation question. i.e. please add it to the RDF Core test suite, and ask the WG to approve it, either as an error or as a positive test. On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 12:35, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >From RDF M&S, section 5: Ironcially, section 5 is not about RDF syntax; it's called "5. Formal Model for RDF: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model > <P>To represent a collection <I>c</I>, create a triple {RDF:type, > <I>c</I>, <I>t</I>} where <I>t</I> is one of the three collection > types RDF:Seq, RDF:Bag, or RDF:Alt. The remaining triples > {RDF:_1, <I>c</I>, <I>r</I><SUB>1</SUB>}, > ..., {RDF:_n, <I>c</I>, <I>r</I><SUB>n</SUB>}, ... point to each of the > members <I>r</I><SUB>n</SUB> of the collection. > For a single collection resource there may be at most one triple > whose predicate is > any given element of <I>Ord</I> > and the elements of <I>Ord</I> must be used in sequence starting with RDF:_1. > For resources that are instances of the RDF:Alt collection type, there must > be exactly one triple whose predicate is RDF:_1 and that is the default > value for the Alternatives resource (that is, there must always be at least > one alternative).</P> > > > This looks extremely clear to me. RDF M&S states that not all RDF graphs > (as defined by the new RDF model theory) are valid RDF. > > In other words, the following RDF should be rejected by RDF implementations > is syntactically ill-formed. > > <rdf:Bag> > <rdf:_1 rdf:resource="ex:first" /> > <rdf:_2 rdf:resource="ex:second" /> > <rdf:_1 rdf:resource="ex:other-first" /> > </rdf:Bag> Well, I'm not aware of any implementations that do that, so that's not how the text above was understood by implementors. > Of course, this paragraph goes against some later decisions, as it > explicitly forbids holes in collections, which are now explicitly allowed. Right; it seems to me that we've decided to allow this. But perhaps unconsciously. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 14:02:25 UTC