- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:07:45 -0500
- To: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- CC: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Reading through the container proposal:
http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/rdf/issues/containersyntax/current.htm
I have several questions.
Has this proposal been implemented yet? If so, is there an online demo and
what was the difficulty/effect of this implementation?
> The rdf:li processing of sub-elements is independent of the processing of
> enclosing elements. The selection of an ordinal to replace an rdf:li is not
> affected by any ordinals encountered in sub-elements of the element. The
> selection of an ordinal to replace an rdf:li is not affected by ordinals
> encountered in enclosing elements.
If this is true, what would be the results of something like this:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="#a">
<rdf:li>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="#a">
<rdf:li>inner</rdf:li>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:li>
</rdf:Description>
It seems you'd have something like:
<#a> rdf:_1 <#a>.
<#a> rdf:_1 "inner".
is this correct?
> Note that XML states that the ordering of attributes is not significant and
> that the same attribute name cannot appear more than once on an element. It is
> probably unwise to use rdf:li as an attribute. If it is used in presence of
> other ordinal property attributes, the ordinal property with which it will be
> replaced is undefined.
Err, this isn't very helpful. Could the proposal provide precise guidance on
this -- like, don't do it? Or is that what is meant by undefined?
Thanks for your help,
--
[ :name "Aaron Swartz" ;
:mbox <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ;
:homepage <http://www.aaronsw.com> ] is dc:author of <> .
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 17:08:00 UTC