Misleading note about extensibiity of Collection syntax from Dan Connolly on 2000-08-03 (www-rdf-comments@w3.org from July to September 2000) (original) (raw)
I think this is bogus:
"Note: The RDF Schema specification [RDFSCHEMA] also defines a mechanism to declare additional subclasses of these container types, in which case production [18] is extended to include the names of those declared subclasses."
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#containers
For example, consider:
<rdf:RDF xmlns="#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" > rdf:lifoo
<rdfs:Class id="#MyContainer"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Container"/>
Is an RDF 1.0 parser expected to parse MyContainer as a typednode or as a container? The note suggests container... but suppose the statement that MyContainer is a Container were in some document linked from this one, and that document's source was questionable, and I don't necessarily trust it. Does the model I get from this document depend on whether I trust some other document? I hope not.
-- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2000 13:54:12 UTC