W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Alternate parseType Issues

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:58:36 -0400
Message-ID: <01e901c0f371$b07f7150$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Cc: "RDF Comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote:
>
> What the spec actually says is:
...
>   Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by RDF.
>   With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'.
>
>

Seems pretty clear to me.

What is the issue? That the RDF EBNF is not complete? Well Virginia, the RDF
EBNF is not complete.

What might be considered is making it _informative_ rather than normative to
the recommendation. In order to do it correctly you'd need to allow
different RDF namespace prefixes, handle whitespace, attribute order etc.
etc. etc., Heck you'd need to replicate large parts of XML and then restrict
the syntax allowed. Now that you mention it, that's exactly what certain
types of schema languages do.

The suggestion has been made to define the RDF grammar as a function of the
XML Infoset rather than the native XML character stream, this is essentially
the same as defining the RDF Grammar using a regular tree language (i.e.
RELAX or TREX).

-Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 15:16:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:28 GMT