W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2005

RE: Grammar question

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:21:27 -0500
To: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004b01c527e0$55b6d450$6401a8c0@gsclaptop>

Please disregard most of my last message :-) I'd overlooked the fact that []
and () can't meaningfully stand alone within a graph {}.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Chappell [mailto:geoff@sover.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:47 AM
> To: 'public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org'
> Subject: Grammar question
> In the latest grammar VarOrTerm includes empty lists and empty blank nodes
> but does not include lists with content (Collection) or blank nodes with
> content (BlankNodePropertyList). Everywhere that VarOrTerm is used also
> offers alternatives using Collection and BlankNodePropertyList (except
> Reification - is that a mistake?). So why not just make RDFTerm include
> lists with content, blank nodes with content, and reifications - e.g. like
> the unused AnyNode? (sort of like saying that you can use a noun phrase
> anywhere you can use a noun.) Seems like it would simplify the grammar
> plus avoid potential mistakes of omission (e.g. shouldn't reification be
> included in CollectionElement?). Or is there a necessary distinction that
> I'm missing?
> Geoff
Received on Sunday, 13 March 2005 15:21:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:48 GMT