Misleading note about extensibiity of Collection syntax

• From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
• Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:53:54 -0500
• To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
• Message-ID: <3989B1B2.1787E12B@w3.org>

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."
-- https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#containers
For example, consider:
<rdf:RDF
	xmlns="#"
	xmlns:rdf="https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:rdfs="https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
	>
<MyContainer>
 <rdf:li>foo</rdf:li>
</MyContainer>
<rdfs:Class id="#MyContainer">
  <rdfs:subClassOf 
    rdf:resource="https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Container"/>
</rdfs:Class>
</rdf:RDF>
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 https://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 3 August 2000 13:54:12 UTC