- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:53:35 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Dan Connolly wrote: > >(on Jonathan Borden's RELAXNG work...) > >(msg trimmed to focus on rdf:Description question) > > > > I have specified this as a RELAXNG schema for RDF > > > http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/RDF1.rng in terms of solidifying >the RDF XML > > > syntax under the issue: > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-formal-grammar > > > > Very nice! > > > > It has a few special cases that I don't think are necessary > > (e.g. rdf:value is just another propertyElement/propertyAttribute, > > and rdf:Description is just a typedNode) but other than > > that, it seems to be quite a compact and precise description of > > the RDF syntax. > > > >[...] > > > Production 4 is ambiguous, no? > > > > 4.type description = > > rdf:Description[ > > idAboutAttr?, > > bagIdAttr?, > > propAttr?, > > propertyElt* > > ] | > > typedNode > > > > <rdf:Description/> matches both alternatives, no? > > > > As I say, I don't see any need to special-case > > rdf:Description in the grammar. > > >If we take this reading of the syntax, then the presence of >rdf:Description asserts an rdf:type relationship between the described >resource and an rdfs:Class called rdf:Description. > >I've seen nothing in RDF elsewhere to support the claim that RDF defines >such a class; M+S is pretty clear that the rdf:Description construct is >pure encoding syntax. Dan, can you (briefly) elaborate on what you mean by 'encoding syntax' ? Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 13:53:37 UTC