- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:52:48 +0100
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
[...]
> 2. I'm still not convinced that (y)our "to avoid trying to specify
> the behaviour of processors when they encounter incorrect RDF" is
> enough,
So my reasoning here is:
o we have got a lot of work to do specifiying what to do with correct RDF -
I suggest the community are more in need of knowing what is and how to
process legal RDF than they need to be told how process incorrect RDF.
o we are not specifying the behavior of processors - we are specifying a
language and its transformation from one representation to another.
> but is also a "declarative matter" (certainly in the
> 'context' of 'nestings') --
If you are referring to the nesting of triples within triples, that is
not part of the RDF 1.0 language or model. Lets focus on test cases for
the spec we have.
Brian
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 05:54:17 UTC