- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:23:57 +0100
- To: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
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