[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
> Sure. Obviously this document is not Rec-quality and was not advertised
> as such. It says R elements can contain multiple PV elements, but not
> that they can't contain other R elements. However, PV elements cannot
> contain R elements: that is specified implicitly, since the content has
> to be a string. (This means that XML literals aren't expressible in RPV.)
>
Then is Tim's RPV just an example? Or an alternate? Tim, what do you want
people to do with RPV? It's important to clarify this because I've seen
links to your syntax elsewhere, with people calling it "an RDF/XML
alternative". There is confusion on this.
> > > In order for there to be any links to the bnode, of course it
> has to have
> > > an id attribute, unlike the situation in RDF/XML where an odd-striped
> > > element can have neither about nor id attributes.
> > >
> >
> > Example?
>
> Example of what?
>
> > > > And would the property then be "propertySeq" or "Seq"? This
> > > would have to
> > > > formalized, or we'll all be doing something different.
> > >
> > > It would be "{rdfnamespace}Seq".
> > >
> >
> > Example?
>
> <R r="foo">
> <PV p="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type";
> v="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Seq"/>
> <PV p="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1";
> v="bar"/>
> <PV p="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_2";
> v="baz"/>
> </R>
>
You know, I hate to say this, but this isn't much different than the
RDF/XML, is it? For instance:
<s:students>
<rdf:Seq>
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Amy"/>
<rdf:_2 rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Tim"/>
<rdf:_3 rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/John"/>
<rdf:_4 rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Mary"/>
<rdf:_5 rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Sue"/>
</rdf:Seq>
</s:students>
The primary difference really is that the namespace decorated XML element
(and I'm aware that namespacing is a real issue with RDF/XML) is the
property in RDF/XML, but Tim's syntax has only a PV element, with a P
attribute containing the property and it's associated object value given an
attributes. Without bringing in the RDF baggage, does Tim's model really
simplify that much? Yes, it's a very simple set of elements, but does it
make the triples clearer, the model easier to understand?
If you're saying the PV element tells a person that this is a property/value
pair, related to the top level resource, I can just as easily say that in
RDF/XML, each element under the top level resource is a property, with its
associated values.
However, I guess this is more a matter of taste than anything.
> > So what you're saying then, is that a person will have to know
> the RDF model
> > in order to read and write Tim's RPV?
>
> To understand it in full. Partial understanding of RPV is
> possible with only
> a partial understanding of the model.
>
> > I really would like to see some real world RDF models
> serialized with Tim's
> > RPV. Has anyone done this, and where can we see them? Links to same?
> > Personally, I'd love to put these against the RDF/XML version
> to see -- side
> > by side -- the differences.
>
> It's trivial.
>
> 1) Express your RDF using the Basic Serialization Syntax described in M&S
> Section 2.2.1. This is done by undoing the transformations described in
> M&S 2.2.2, as well as the container syntax of 3.2. (The URI-pattern
> containers of 3.4 cannot be transformed this way, but they are
> being dropped
> from RDF.)
>
> 2) Then map as follows:
>
> rdf:Description -> RPV:R
> rdf:about -> RPV:r
> the element type of a property element -> express as a URI in RPV:p
> rdf:resource -> RPV:v
> rdf:bagID -> RPV:rpv
>
>
That's cool. Now let's see some converted models. If you're not interested
in providing it John, perhaps Tim will. I don't care, I just want to see
some good test cases.
Remember, I'm from Missouri -- Show me.
Shelley
|
