Aaron Swartz wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 11:21 AM, Dave Beckett wrote: > > > Pretty clearly when rdf:type is used as a property attribute, it is > > defined to take a resource as a value (this is in the grammar). > > It is my opinion that since the grammar refers to an unprefixed > 'type', and we have disallowed that irregularity, this > irregularity should be removed also. It is likely that > processors dealing with valid documents (i.e. prefixed with > rdf:) will already be in line with recent RDF Core decisions. I > think we should also remove the irregularity that causes type to > correspond to a resource and not a literal, thus simplifying the > grammmar, with little impact on backwards compatibility. I regret to report that when I first implemented RDF syntax, I completely missed this exception for rdf:type. My XSL-based RDF parser does as Aaron suggests: treats rdf:type just like any other propAttr. http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/04rdf-parse/ lemme check sax2rdf... bad news; it gets rdf:type wrong too: $ python2 ../cwm.py --rdf typeAttr.rdf --triples <file:/home/connolly/w3ccvs/WWW/2000/10/swap/test/typeAttr.rdf#Animal> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> "http://example/xyz" . typeAttr.rdf: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="Animal" rdf:type="http://example/xyz"/> </rdf:RDF> -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 15:33:41 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:47 EDT