- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:07:19 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > 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 Agreed - I'll make that change in my next pass. Where the URI is excplitly in the text I will not put a link (its' into the middle of 1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#) and link as you suggest. Andy >
Received on Monday, 25 July 2005 14:07:56 UTC