- From: Vassilis Christophides <christop@ics.forth.gr>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:36:11 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- CC: "Karsten Tolle" <tolle@dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Hi, We are currently exploring the 'Refactoring RDF/XML Syntax' (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/) and the corresponding test cases for the 'rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity'. Our remark concerns the translation of the rdf:li to the rdf:_nnn elements. There is no rule given to do so. a) In the test cases we can find the mixture of using rdf:li and rdf:_nnn elements. The existence of the rdf:_n elements has no effect on the translation, as shown in the test cases. Given the proposed translation we may encountered the following cases: 1) <rdf:Seq rdf:ID="myseq" rdf:li="a" rdf:_1="b"/> which would create the triples: [rdf:Type, myseq, rdf:Seq], [rdf:_1, myseq, "a"], [rdf:_1, myseq, "b"] 2) <rdf:Seq rdf:ID="myseq"> <rdf:_1/> <rdf:li /> <rdf:_2/> </rdf:Seq> Semantically this would mean for the sequence 'myseq' there are two elements at the first position! What is the underlying semantics for sequences? In order to avoid these inconsistencies it should be better to disallow the mixture of the rdf:_nnn and rdf:li elements inside one typedNode. Do we really need both elements or wouldn't be sufficient to use the rdf:_nnn element? b) In the test case Nr. 5 the counting goes on even outside the typedNode element. While in test case Nr. 8 there is a reset for the counting. The second sounds more reasonable but at least it should be consistent. Best regards Karsten Tolle Vassilis Christophides
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 10:39:20 UTC