- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:44:49 -0700
- To: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Dave, 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! :) Thanks, Garret
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2007 23:45:08 UTC