W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

RE: W3C RDF Validator vs. tbl-03

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:43:26 +0200
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <emmanuel@w3.org>
Cc: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDOEOKCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


I suspect Emmanuel just needs to slot in the latest Jena release ...
(I understand the validator is now using the version 2 stream which is up to
date on all WG decisions)

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dave Beckett
> Sent: 11 August 2003 10:17
> To: Patrick Stickler
> Cc: ext Frank Manola; w3c-rdfcore-wg
> Subject: Re: W3C RDF Validator vs. tbl-03
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > I recall the decision was "doesn't have to generate" not
> > "should not generate".
> >
> > So technically, the validator is conformant. Though someone
> > may still wish to change it to omit the triples in question.
>
> There is no fuzziness at all in what triples are generated
> from RDF/XML - that is one of the things we were revising for.
> parseType="Collection" must not generate them after our change.
>
> Applications that don't want to be conformant can do what they
> like, as always.
>
> Dave
>
>
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 04:53:22 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:36 EDT