- From: Perry A. Caro <caro@Adobe.COM>
- Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 09:52:43 -0700
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>
> <ImageDataset>
> <ImageClass>
> <ImageClass> <!--1-->
> <Image name="foo"/>
> </ImageClass>
> <ImageClass> <!--2-->
> <Image name="bar"/>
> </ImageClass>
> </ImageClass>
> </ImageDataset>
I agree that this is not well-formed. Production [6.17] says "obj", not
"obj*".
> <ImageDataset>
> <ImageClass>
> <ImageClass> <!--1-->
> <Image name="foo"/>
> </ImageClass>
> </ImageClass>
> </ImageDataset>
>
> Now the parser agrees, producing:
>
> {'Description__1', rdf:type, 'ImageDataset'}
> {'Description__1', 'ImageClass', 'Description__2'}
> {'Description__2', rdf:type, 'ImageClass'}
> {'Description__2', 'Image', 'Description__3'}
> {'Description__3', name, literal(foo)}
I believe this is correct. When in doubt, I rewrite typed nodes as their
basic non-abbreviated syntax equivalents:
<rdf:Description rdf:type="ImageDataset">
<ImageClass>
<rdf:Description rdf:type="ImageClass">
<Image>
<rdf:Description>
<name>foo</name>
</rdf:Description>
</Image>
</rdf:Description>
</ImageClass>
</rdf:Description>
Your parser should produce the same triples (apart from anonymous ID
generation) for both serializations. Actually, I like your {type}_N
convention for anonymous ids, so in your case, the triples should be exactly
identical.
Perry
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 12:54:08 UTC