- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.se>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:59:34 +0200
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <pachampi@caramail.com>, RDF Intrest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > > Actually, I just saw I misunderstood you : > you were suggesting > > <rdf:Property ID="myprop"> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Seq"/> > <rdfs:containerRange rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/> > </rdf:Property> > > and I suggested > > <rdf:Property ID="myprop"> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/> > <rdfs:containerRange rdf:resource="&rdf;Seq"/> > </rdf:Property> > > The reason I prefer the second option is that rdfs:range > keeps addressing the atomic value(s) of the property, (for > either mono- or multi-valued properties) > and containerRange addresses the kind of multi-valuation > allowed. Containers are not only used because a subject has many objects with a specific property. How would you express the case there you always want the range to be a container, even if that container has one or no members? My suggestion is backwards comaptible. A parser that doesn't support containerRange would still validate the model because the semantics of rdfs:range remains. It's nice to let the range of property include containers. But it isn't bad to encurage you to make a descision on what you wan't to use; containers or repeated properties. I can't think of a good reason to allow both for a specific property. -- / Jonas - http://paranormal.se/myself/cv/index.html
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 09:58:17 UTC