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

Re: #rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity,#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema

From: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:11:39 -0400
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010612111139.A20701@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 09:23:39AM -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > So if the above is a typedNode [and I thank Brian for catching
> > my error], then the triples suggested in:
> > 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0138.html
> > 
> > don't seem to be correct.
> 
> Why is this? It was my understanding that the example was in the context of
> Brian's proposal in which the special container syntax was removed and
> containers were made ordinary typedNodes. Thus, in his proposal this would
> be perfectly legal, and so it should be defined.

Hi Aaron,

The proposal:

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Dec/0082.html

say:

 [[

  4. Proposal
   ========

   1) Parsers MAY NOT implement the specific productions
      6.25-6.31.  This has no effect on the language as
      anything that matches these productions also matches
      other productions in the grammar.
 ]]

Are you [or Brian] saying this means that rules 6.25-6.31 will be 
removed? 

Art
---
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 11:12:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:06 EDT