- From: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:31:56 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:
> > > 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.
Yes, I see what you mean. I don't think it would be very _useful_ RDF
though, for the reasons above...
> <rdf:Description about="http://example.com/foo">
> <rdf:li>xxx</rdf:li>
> <rdf:li>yyy</rdf:li>
> </rdf:Description>
Regards,
David Allsopp
--
/d{def}def/u{dup}d[0 -185 u 0 300 u]concat/q 5e-3 d/m{mul}d/z{A u m B u
m}d/r{rlineto}d/X -2 q 1{d/Y -2 q 2{d/A 0 d/B 0 d 64 -1 1{/f exch d/B
A/A z sub X add d B 2 m m Y add d z add 4 gt{exit}if/f 64 d}for f 64 div
setgray X Y moveto 0 q neg u 0 0 q u 0 r r r r fill/Y}for/X}for showpage
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 10:36:19 UTC