W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: ambiguity in RDF/XML bnode short form?

From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:44:49 -0700
Message-ID: <46D21071.2040702@globalmentor.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>


Dave Beckett wrote:
> Yes.  But try to avoid property attributes, since amongst
> other things, it means you cannot have different languages
> for literals, and you can't have xml literals.

My RDF->RDF/XML generation code checks for these cases.

>>  From the text, then, I should be able to replace,
>> <rdf:Description>
>>  <ex:editor>
>>    <rdf:Description/>
>>  </ex:editor>
>> </rdf:Description>
>> with
>> <rdf:Description>
>>  <ex:editor/>
>> </rdf:Description>
> No, the meaning is different.  The former has a blank node object,
> the latter has an empty string value, same as your next example:

That was my point regarding ambiguity...

> Yes it is ambiguous in the examples (section 2), but not in the formal
> description (sections 6 and 7), specifically:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#emptyPropertyElt
> The latter wins in case of disagreements,
> so it's not strictly wrong. But it should be mentioned in an errata.

Ah, I was missing the formal description. Thanks!

> Basically, my advice is do not over abbreviate rdf/xml.  Avoid
> property attributes as well as things like the above.  It's
> just confusing.

Sure, but if it's in the RDF/XML specification, my parser has to be able 
to handle it.

> RDF/XML is a design from 1998/1999 and it's requirements then
> are a lot different from formats of today.

That's something I'll completely agree with! :)


Received on Sunday, 26 August 2007 23:45:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:58 UTC