- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:18:52 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- CC: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>> test2: No, I believe this is inconsistent with our new interpretation of
>> <propElt />. It should be considered an error, in the same way error1 is.
>
> It would be helpful if you could explain why. The grammar production
>
> '<' propName idRefAttr? bagIdAttr? propAttr* '/>'
>
> allows it and
>
> Specifically; each propertyElt start tag containing attribute
> specifications other than ID, resource, bagID, xml:lang, or any
> attribute starting with the characters xmlns results in the creation
> of the triples {p,r1,r2}, ...
>
> specifies the interpretation.
The important part comes afterwards:
r2 is the resource named by the resource attribute if present or a new
resource. If the ID attribute is given it is the identifier of this new
resource.
Since the context of the test cases is the decision that an empty element no
longer creates a new resource, I do not feel that RDF should create any
properties to hang off of that no-longer-existent resource. To do so would
only make things more confusing.
--
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com> ]
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 18:20:21 UTC