- From: Stefan Kokkelink <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:58:22 +0100
- To: Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Gabe Beged-Dov wrote: <snip /> > > > 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. > > > > I disagree here. In general there is no need to know > > about the XML structure since the XML serialization > > is meant for exchanging RDF models (at least that is > > my point of view ;-). If you look at the examples of > > M&S you won't find an RDF graph containing a reification > > or bagification unless bagID or propertyID are explicitly > > given. In my opinion a parser SHOULD provide a configuration > > setting that enforces a bagification for every rdf:Description > > element (if someone really is interested in the XML structure > > of the serialization...) > > I am trying to achieve multiple goals with this interpretation of the > M&S. The goals are: > > - To have a single consistent interpretation of what an > RDF processor generates <snip /> Yes, this is overdue. The recommendation was published almost two years ago, and there is still no such consistent interpretation what an RDF processor should do.(Please, correct me if I am wrong!) Besides the above problem there are several other. Another example: <?xml version="1.0"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:s="http://description.org/schema/"> <rdf:Bag ID="BAG_ID"> <rdf:li resource="xyz"/> <rdf:li resource="abc"/> </rdf:Bag> <rdf:Description ID="MyID"> <s:documents> <rdf:Description aboutEach="#BAG_ID"> <s:creator>Karl</s:creator> </rdf:Description> </s:documents> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> If you use one of the four parser available online (hope I didn't forget one?) [1],[2],[3],[4], you get four different results. This problem has been discussed a while ago (see [5],[6] or the question in [7]:Which should we implement?), but there is still no decision. In my opinion the reason for this is that there is no authority who could make such a decision (or recommendation). Stefan [1] http://swi.psy.uva.nl/projects/SWI-Prolog/packages/sgml/online.html [2] http://www.w3.org/RDF/Implementations/SiRPAC/ [3] http://www.pro-solutions.com/rdfdemo/ [4] http://zoe.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE/RDF/parser.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0138.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0153.html [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0154.html
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2000 09:59:17 UTC