- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:07:26 -0500
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 13:35 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > Dan Connolly wrote: [...] > > link is neither local, part, informative, nor normative: > > [<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#nil>] > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_nil" > > > > > > link is neither local, part, informative, nor normative: > > [<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>] > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_type" > > > > I don't understand why there are links to rdf-schema. > > I can explain the schema links: they are links for constants used in SPARQL. > rdf:nil and rdf:type. > > RDF Collections are in rdf:nil is in RDF schema and SPARQL has list syntax to > agree with that and mentions rdf:nil (i.e the rdf collection "()") > > Similarly for "a" - rq23 says it stands for rdf:type and links to that URI. > > So a RDF schema link should be normative (or remove the links and leave the > bytes for the URI not in a <a> but that woudl be shame). Though rdf:nil and rdf:type are discussed in the RDF Schema spec, they're also discussed, fairly definitively, in [RDF-MT], and we already have a normative reference there. I don't like giving the impression that SPARQL depends on RDF Schema. For rdf:nil, let's use 3.3.3 RDF collections http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#collections and for rdf:type, let's use 3.1 RDF Interpretations http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFINTERP -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 25 July 2005 13:07:30 UTC