Re: RDF:type vs. instanceOf, nextVal

Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
> Axel Hecht aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>> as indicated already on my blog,
> 
> Blogging is actually a way of information *hiding*. :-/
> Who can watch all "relevant" blogs? Which blogs *are* relevant? :-(
> 
> That's what Usenet was made for: sharing thoughts and information! :)
 >
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90566, 
> 
> Mnenhy uses constructs like this to get
> 
> GetSources(
>    GetResource("http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#instanceOf"),
>    GetResource("http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Seq"),
>    true
> );
> 
> to get all (Seq) containers of a datasource. Would rdf:type work already
> here?

No, which is the actual bug.

>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98392, and 
> 
>> I don't think that I can actually create something that is 
>> reliably backwards compatible, though I could add some fakage into 
>> nsInMemoryDataSource, which may cover quite a few szenarios. I'd really 
>> prefer not to, though.
>>
>> Opinions?
> 
> A "nice" API way for getting (top level) containers would be, well,
> nice. ;-)
> And GetCount() could return something really useful (eg. the real count
> *g*) instead of some nextVal junk...

Containers are a hack and tend to junk. That's the way they are.

Axel