Re: RDF Containers in XUL Trees

Aha - the light it shines brightly in my eyes!

Thanks R_O_O_K, I did actually see your post but I have only now 
understood it's consequences.

Though why doesn't it inherit that property when declaring an 
"instanceOf". I was under the impression that that was the whole point 
of the RDF type inheritance.

Thanks for this, I guess I'll stick with the standard containers rather 
than defining my own then.

Cheers,

Neil



R_O_O_K wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> The trick is that writing
> <rdf:Seq ...>
> implicitly adds a rdf:nextVal predicate and thus
> it is equal to sth like this
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:nextVal="1">
>   <rdf:instanceOf 
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Seq">
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> Without this "nextVal" the template builder simply doesn't build the 
> tree. I posted a comment on this at
> http://www.xulplanet.com/tutorials/mozsdk/rdfsyntax.php
> some time ago. Maybe it's high time it got into the RDF tutorial,
> it seems to confuse many people.
> 
> (Anyone on the XULPlanet team reading this post?)
> 
> Best regards!
> Michal Ziemski
> 
> Dnia 2005-01-10 21:16, Użytkownik Neil Stansbury napisał:
> 
>> Hi Axel,
>>
>> Thanks for this,
>>
>>> You can use containment or whatever the attribute is actually called 
>>> on the template to add arcs to iterate over. What you do is hardly 
>>> going to do alot useful, though.
>>
>>
>>
>> No but it will allow me to test whether a resource has the property of 
>> 'my:Container' rather than just the generic 'rdf:Seq'. It just seemed 
>> to make more sense semantically.
>>
>>> You could use plain containers, and use a instanceOf in the enum to 
>>> add a new class. Or you go without it completely. Mixing rdf:li with 
>>> other parents is likely to achieve brokeness.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I use the following RDF the tree doesn't build:
>>
>> <my:Container rdf:about="level1" my:name="Parent">
>>   <rdf:instanceOf
>>       rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Seq"/>
>>   <rdf:li rdf:resource="level2"/>
>> </my:Container>
>>
>> <my:Container rdf:about="level2" my:name="Child">
>>   <rdf:instanceOf
>>       rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Seq"/>
>>   <rdf:li rdf:resource="level3"/>
>> </my:Container>
>>
>> If I swap the 'my:Container' class for 'rdf:Seq' it builds fine.
>>
>> I take it this is what you mean by:
>>
>>  > Mixing rdf:li with other parents is likely to achieve brokeness.
>>
>> So in theory at least, how does the tree consider an assertion a 
>> container?
>>
>>> There is no such thing as a non-standard rdf container.
>>
>>
>>
>> As in rdf:Seq, rdf:Bag, rdf:Alt
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>