pfps-12 lists are not well formed from Karsten Tolle on 2003-09-01 (www-rdf-comments@w3.org from July to September 2003) (original) (raw)

Dear Dan,

together with the current version of the RDF Primer the text of RDF Schema

describes the current situation very well!-)

My concern is more about the current situation itself. We have two structures,

where the different container types have the benefit of serving a basic semantic but without

the benefit of the lists (without a basic semantic) allowing to say all members are present.

When a user now wants to create his RDF representation he needs to decide what to

choose . if he knows about it . and each decision has its drawback.

The best would be that in cases of well formed containers and collections we might

be able to find a mapping between the two. But we would need an extension of the current

structures for it.

Possible solution (just a first try):

a) Mapping from collection to container: Including the containers rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq and rdf:Alt to the class of rdf:List. This would enable the writer of RDF to construct an collection using the container types. In case all collection elements (the blank nodes) are of one container type (which can not

be ensured), the structure could be transformed in an corresponding

container. Open problem here would be how to handle the member numbers for sequences, e.g. a sequence just containing rdf:_2 and rdf:_5 is also valid. But I am sure that there are ways to solve this.

b) Mapping from container to collections: A property could be introduced telling the counted number of members. If this information is present we can check if all members are around and could also construct the corresponding collection (as described in a).

(I hope it is understandable. If not just let me know and I would try to generate some examples to explain it more in detail.)

The goal at the end would be to have just one structure containing all benefits and to be able to transform existing RDF/XML structures into the new one.

Greetings,

Karsten

P.S.: For the RDF/XML representation in the Editors Draft of RDF Schema

I have the following comments:

a) In the definition of rdfs:isDefinedBy the declaration of being of type Property is twice.

b) For my opinion rdf:List should be also sub class of rdfs:Resource.

c) The definition of rdfs:member is ok, but wouldn't it make sense to say that it is of type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty?

Peter, Karsten,

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/ (editor's working copy) is now updated with our finalised Lists text. We propose to close this LC issue on the basis of the new wording. Could you both reply to this message to let us know whether the current text is acceptable and resolves your issue.

Thanks,

Dan

ps. Karsten, regarding your concern that we have both containers and collections, those two mechanisms are described in more detail in the Primer, see editor's copy section 4,

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/#othercapabiliti es

which provides a lengthier explanation of both constructs.

Received on Monday, 1 September 2003 09:13:58 UTC