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

Re: some questions on RefactoringRDF draft

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 08:45:14 -0500
Message-Id: <200109101348.f8ADmHb30486@theinfo.org>
Cc: "RDF Comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
To: Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
Hi Roland, I hope you don't mind if I CC the public 
www-rdf-comments list with your questions, since they are good 
and other users/WG-members might be interested in them.

On Monday, September 10, 2001, at 07:29  AM, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> 6.1 RDF and 4.2 Production RDF allow any typedNode as basic 
> production rule.
>
> Does that imply an RDF processor MUST attempt to create tripels 
> from any wellformed XML??
> How does an application determine WHERE to start processing for RDF??
> Can it just make arbitrary guesses with a given XML document??

This is a matter of some discussion among the working-group. It 
seems the best way to do this is to look for the RDF namespace, 
or have the user of your parser make it clear where the RDF 
starts. However, the issue isn't closed yet.

> typedNodes MUST be prefixed by now.
>
> Does that imply RDF will NOT allow any kind of namespace defaults??

Hmm, perhaps the terminology could be clear here. Namespace 
defaults are OK, as long as they are clearly defined. That is, 
you need to have an xmlns="..." definition in your XML. Then the 
nodes are prefixed in the Infoset, even if they don't have a 
prefix in the XML. (This is rather confusing...)

> ALL attributes MUST be prefixed
>
> Does that imply an RDF processor MUST attempt to map all 
> wellformed XML but will fail almost certainly??
>
> Maybe it's not ALL attributes, but just those, which are 
> supposed to come from RDF??

Yes, a parser is only supposed to deal with the RDF portions of 
a document.

> RDF M&S requires ALT containers non-empty. This restriction 
> seems to be removed - intentionally??

Hmm, I was not aware of this issue. Brian, can you perhaps shed 
some light here?

> Is rdf:RDF, rdf:Description to match the typedNode production 
> rule prevented savely??

I'm not sure what you mean by prevented safely... Perhaps Dave 
can elaborate.

> Thanks for clarification in advance.

Thanks for your comments.

--
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Monday, 10 September 2001 09:45:19 GMT

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