- 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