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

Re: rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:07:37 -0500
Message-ID: <3B8BA5A9.56A0555A@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote:
> If you have any comments on this resolution, please send them
> www-rdf-comments@w3.org.

I'm sorry to say I'm not satisfied; I tried to implement
this solution and found that the idea of <li> matching
typednode is a significant implementation burden without
satisfactory justification.

For details, see

containers test0004 baffles me Dan Connolly (Tue, Aug 21 2001) 

et. seq.

> In
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0018.html
> you raised an issue concerning an ambiguity in the RDF grammar which was
> recorded in the RDF issues list.
> The RDFCore WG has resolved and closed this issue:
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity
> Resolution:
> On 29th June 2001, the WG decided that containers will match the typed node
> production
> in the grammar (M&S Section 6, production 6.13) and that the container specific
> productions (productions 6.25 to 6.31) and any references to them be removed
> from the
> grammar. rdf:li elements will be translated to rdf:_nnn elements when they are
> found
> matching either a propertyElt (production 6.12) or a a typedNode (production
> 6.13). The
> decision includes a set of test cases.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2001 10:08:42 GMT

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