- From: Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:16:12 -0800
- To: "www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- CC: Wraf development <rdf@uxn.nu>
Dave Beckett wrote: > > [plea: can we keep this RDF model discussion on just one list - the > RDF Interest Group list - RDF-IG? I'm getting 2-3 copies of every > message in these threads. RDF-IG is the main RDF list.] I agree. My previous message had wraf-rdf and rdf-interest as the only lists. I didn't want to remove wraf since Jonas had added it and its his list :-). <snip /> > There seem to be some slight typos in your example: Sorry about that. The url for the source document was pretty funky too. Hopefully my intent was pretty clear though. <snip /> > The last one probably should be > <rdf:Description rdf:ID="res3" rdf:bagID="stat_bag3"> > <prop3 rdf:ID="stat3">another value</prop3> > </rdf:Description> > > i.e. introducing stat_bag3 mentioned below and ending prop3 correctly > > And the resulting file (when given rdf:RDF wrapper) parses OK with > Redland+Repat and produces pretty-much the following triples (same > count, didn't check they were exactly identical). It would be a nice exercise to try this out on the various parsers. Stefan Kokkelink has added an amended version of this syntax example to his online parser demonstration [1] for Cara as example E9. He hasn't added the rdf:bagID to last description (stat_bag3) which as you inferred was my intent. <snip of generated statements for fully labeled syntax /> > Is the above: > > Happening because you explicity added bagID attributes to every > typedNode / Description (/container?) [True, in existing apps.] > > Happens anyway with generated IDs anyway when you don't give bagIDs > [Not necessarily true in current apps.] > > or you are proposing that this is the interpretation? I do like > these ideas and would support that, as a standard interpretation. Explicitly adding bagID seems to trigger the reification in most (all?) current parsers. Presence of property ID triggers it in some. In addition, some current parsers provide a configuration setting to cause the riefication and bagification of statements without explicit bagID and property ID ("show bags for each description block" in the Cara demonstration). As you say, I am proposing that we assume that a conformant parser must generate the bags and reified statements. Once we take that step we can then discuss how to provide straightforward and efficient API and implementations based on a standard interpretation. Gabe [1] http://zoe.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE/RDF/parser.html
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 11:16:18 UTC