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

Re: some questions on RefactoringRDF draft

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:28:21 +0100
Message-ID: <3B9E65D5.B26775CC@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
CC: aswartz@upclink.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk

Roland Schwaenzl wrote:


> > Where did you see a suggestion that typed nodes needed to be prefixed?
> > Maybe we can make this more clear there.
> This seems to be implied by the revised EBNF table 3.1 rule 6.19

Good point.

> > So far as I am aware this restriction has not been removed, though
> > we have not finished discussing containers yet.  What was it that
> > suggested to you this restriction is gone?
> rule 6.27 first clause: "<rdf:Alt" idAttr?">"member+"<rdf:Alt>" has been deleted.

Right. For now, I wouldn't interpret that to mean that the definition of Alt has
changed.  It just means that we are not expressing that constraint in the
grammar.  M&S has text which states that Alt must have a default member.

That said, we are not done with containers yet, and Alt in particular has
come in for a lot of criticism.  If have views about Alt, especially if 
you have good uses for it, I'd love to hear them.  That would help us
understand the issues we are dealing with.

> -------------
> Section 3.1 of the draft seems not of same content as section 4.2. For instance 4.23 item 8 is not
> reflected in 3.1.

I'm definitely going to let Dave answer that one.

> How an RDF processor is supposed to handle 4.18 ?? ...again a question about processing, sorry.

No, please don't appologise.  This is excellent feedback.  Just what we need.

By 4.18, I take you are referring to the Production parseOther in 


I hadn't noticed that one before.  I should let Dave answer.  My
guess is that this is to do with the words in M&S which state if a processor
comes across an rdf:parseType attribute with a value other than Resource or
Literal, it should process it as if it were Literal.

> Cheers
> rs
> >
> > Brian
> >
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 15:32:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:15 UTC