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

RE: rdf namespace reserved or not?

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:03:49 -0400
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000901c10e5c$56d2f310$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
Brian McBride wrote:
>
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >
> > rdf:li AND rdf:_1 AS TYPES (reserving rdf: namespace)
> > ==========================
> > rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test005.rdf explicitly allows rdf:li and
> > rdf:_1 to be types.
> >
> > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> >          xmlns:foo="http://foo/">
> >   <rdf:_1/>
> >   <rdf:li/>
> >   <rdf:li/>
> > </rdf:RDF>
>
> This is a bizarre corner case where the WG defined the equivalent triples
> primarily to make sure an answer was defined.  There was a choice between
> making it illegal and allowing it.  It's a marginal call.  There were no
> particularly strong reasons for going one way or the other.
>
> > & what about
> >
> > <rdf:Description rdf:Description="text string"/>
> >
> > whereas presumably the insanely equivalent
> >
> > <rdf:Description>
> >   <rdf:Description>text string</rdf:Description>
> > </rdf:Description>
> >
> > is still an error.

> I'm not sure what to make of the reference to insanity here.

> I personally would say they were both errors.  I'll refer these test
> cases to the WG so we make sure the result is clearly defined.  There are
> more too, e.g.

>  <rdf:Description>
>    <rdf:Bag>this one is really silly</rdf:Bag>
>  </rdf:Description>

> On a minor process point, this is the sort of thing that is probably best
> sent to www-rdf-comments@w3.org.

It is easy enough to exclude the RDF namespace from the typedNode pattern,
for example the regular expression:

<element>
	<not>
		<nsName ns=""/>
	</not>
...
</element>

excludes elements with no namespace. an <nsName
ns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/> could be easily inserted.
A properly defined grammar for RDF solves these sorts of issues.

-Jonathan
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 21:09:11 GMT

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