- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 22:48:47 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/05/rdf-c/ (copied below in text form)
[...]
> I am well aware that the proposal is currently in a skeletal state, and
> lacks test cases. I hope it provides at least some useful background for
> discussion on friday. Regarding test cases, I have to say I'm stumped: the
> implementations this relate to are databases, APIs etc rather than
> parsers, and I am not sure how best to represent tests of that kind.
Er... maybe I'm missing something, but I read it twice, and it
seems to reduce to this simple test case: is this an RDF
document or not?
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description>
<rdf:_1>abc</rdf:_1>
<rdf:_3>def</rdf:_3>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
The simplest answer that meets my needs is: yes, that's
an RDF document. The parts of the spec that suggest
otherwise are an error.
To my mind, anything that suggest that containers are
fundamental in any way -- that they are anything
more than a standardized vocabulary of classes and
properties and some syntactic sugar -- is an error.
Now this doesn't resolve either of the active issues you
own, danbri, so maybe I missed the gist of your proposal.
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 23:48:56 UTC