- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 2002年3月21日 17:01:18 -0000
- To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGEHFCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Hi Pierre-Antoine it appears from your message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0214.html that the WGs resolution of the nested bagIDs issue was insufficiently clear. I believe that the intent is now slightly clearer and point you at: The current editors draft of the syntax doc: http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#nodeElement http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#emptyPropertyElt (this draft has not yet been approved but is likely to be published with minor changes very soon). And the relevant test cases (that were approved last week) http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-nested-bagIDs/ In particular your suggestion: > So we could propose an idiom like rdf:bagID="", > overriding the outer bagID but creating no additional bag. is, if I have understood you correctly, the default behaviour. That is reifications of the more deeply nested triples that could go into an additional bag *never* go into the outer bag. See particularly test004: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-nested-bagIDs/test004.rdf and http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-nested-bagIDs/test004.nt Once again, can we ask you to reply to the www-rdf-comments@w3.org list, indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue. Jeremy Carroll HP rep on RDF Core WG
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 12:01:38 UTC