Re: N3 vs. XML

At 09:01 AM 5/22/01 +0100, David Allsopp wrote:
> > At 10:31 AM 5/21/01 +0100, David Allsopp wrote:
> > >They may not make sense though - what about collections? If you remove
> > >the rdf:type property then the collection isn't valid RDF.
>[...]
> >
> > I don't see that removing rdf:type makes it invalid RDF.
>
>M&S says "this [collection] resource *must* be declared to be an
>instance of one of the container object types defined above" (my
>emphasis).
>
>In addition, if we don't know what type of collection it is, we can't
>always handle it correctly - in some cases we might want to merge Bags
>or Alternatives (by renumbering) but this might not make sense for
>Sequences; or the order of merging might be significant, or we might
>want to render them differently in a graphical RDF viewer, etc.

I agree it might not be a valid container description, but it still seems 
like valid RDF to me.

e.g.

     <rdf:Description about="http://example.com/foo">
       <rdf:li>xxx</rdf:li>
       <rdf:li>yyy</rdf:li>
     </rdf:Description>



FWIW, SiRPAC offers this:

The original RDF/XML document

1: <?xml version="1.0"?>
2: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3:             xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
4:     <rdf:Description about="http://example.com/foo">
5:       <rdf:li>xxx</rdf:li>
6:       <rdf:li>yyy</rdf:li>
7:     </rdf:Description>
8: </rdf:RDF>

Triples of the data model

  Number  Subject
          Predicate
          Object

  1       http://example.com/foo
          http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#li
          xxx

  2       http://example.com/foo
          http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#li
          yyy

The number of triples = 2

Which is what I would expect.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 10:24:28 UTC