W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: RDF Collections

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:25:30 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1319027130.8781.43.camel@waldron>
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 11:32 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 2/ (primer) defining "well-formed"
>     (formally in RDF semantics). 

The 2004 Primer suggests well-formed-ness is whatever
parsetype=Collection would give, which is on the right track, but you
can't put literals in parsetype=Collection lists, so that's not the
right definition.    Thus my reference to Turtle's list syntax.

The 2004 Semantics leaves out the notion that you can't have extraneous
links (which also means you can't actually *say* rdf:type rdf:List for
the nodes) for well-formedness, and it's hardly obvious.

I hadn't realized how close 'well-formed' already was to 'simple lists';
so, yeah, maybe no one will have a problem with saying well-formed is
what can be serialized in Turtle's list syntax (but I guess in the
Semantics we have to say that without reference to Turtle).   That'd be
good.    "Well-formed" has a fair amount of "you should do it this way"
in the name.

Should we make some WellFormedList NotWellFormedList test cases?  Can
you think of a way to do this without a new test type?  

   -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 12:25:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT