W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2002

RE: not-id-and-resource-attr

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:55:43 -0000
To: "Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEMDCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Bluff!

Jan:
> - we recognise the current irregularity in the RDF syntax with regards
> to this production; however, the current production reflects accurately
> the letter of the RDF M+S. Removing the irregularity from this
> production completely would require a change in the interpretation of
> rdf:ID which (since it would certainly break the meaning of existing RDF
> documents*) is beyond the scope of the RDF Core efforts in this regard.
>
>
> Cheers,
> jan
>
> * as asserted numerous times by various RDF core members

I looked through the archive and could not see even the assertions let alone
links to docs using rdf:ID on empty property elements to name the object
resource.


I also saw assertions that parsers had implemented the reading of M&S that
is currently in the WD. These seemed to be unsubstantiated. A fairly
informal survey that I have done suggests a lack of uniformity and
significant confusion in the implementation of reification. I expect that
once we are done most/all parser writers will need to revisit their
reification code since as far as I can tell there is no industry consensus
behind any one reading of M&S.


Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 11:00:45 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:53 EDT