Re: RDF Containers in XUL Trees

Neil Stansbury wrote:
> 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.
> 

It's a bug. We just switch to container-foo for typed nodes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-list-elements 
says (at least that's the way I read it) that that is optional.

Actually, I read the spec to say that rdf:li should be parsed into 
rdf:_n in any situation, but that it makes most sense to do so in the 
rdf containers 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-List-Expand).

I wonder if anybody cares to read the spec closely and confirm that 
thinking.

> 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,
>>>
>>>
>>>