W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-empty-property-elements [was ...]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:15:01 +0100
Message-ID: <3B1E5705.49293CFB@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
CC: barstow@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:

[...]
> Well I was actually meaning that we *could*
> have an error1.n3 file in the testcase suite
> and that that file *could* contain no triples.

I see what you mean.  I think we decided to avoid trying to specify the
behaviour of processors when they encounter incorrect RDF.  I'd suggest
that a process where we specify the triples which correct RDF/XML
represents, and we have test cases which illustrate bad RDF/XML but
don't specify what triples should be output for bad RDF is consistent
with that.

> The broader issue here is when you have a
> "nesting" (to use Pat's new term) supposed
> to contain triples and there is a
> 'syntactic problem' then WHAT is going to be
> in e.g. an engine's memory?
> Craching is definitely out of question and
> exception reporting/logging is obvious, but
> what is the exception handling supposed to be.

I suggest that is not the concern of this WG.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 12:16:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:03 EDT