- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:33:54 -0800
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Frank,
Frank Manola wrote:
> Point of clarification: none of the forms is supposed to show each
> referenced student as having an rdf:type of s:student. s:students is
> the name of the relationship between the course and the collection of
> students. If you wanted to identify the students as each having
> rdf:type of s:student, you could of course do so, but that's not part of
> the example at the moment.
Hmmm... The 11 November 2002 version of the primer has:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/courses/6.001">
<s:students rdf:parseType="Collection" >
<s:student rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Amy"/>
<s:student rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Tim"/>
<s:student rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/John"/>
</s:students>
</rdf:Description>
Each one of those <s:student> elements must generate an
rdf:type="s:student" *somewhere*, or there would be no point in writing
anything besides <rdf:Description> for each element in the collection.
What does the <s:student> signify, if not the type of each student resource?
> OK, I now understand what you mean by the "long form";
I am just assuming that's what Shelly meant.
> I just don't
> know how much it clarifies (the "long form" isn't even illustrated in
> the Syntax spec), and I don't think we expect anyone to write the "long
> form" directly (unlike some of the other abbreviated forms).
I don't know either. Realizing what all these shortcuts really mean
(they are shortcuts for *something*, after all) might help understand
the concepts, but even more so thay make me step back and ponder the
implications of the complexity of the new round of abbreviated forms.
Garret
Received on Sunday, 12 January 2003 16:38:02 UTC