Re: RDF Issue rdfms-syntax-desc-clarity

Brian McBride wrote:
>
> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0006.html
> you raised an issue with the RDF M&S spec which was recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-desc-clarity
> [...] the WG are rewriting the syntax documents
> from scratch and using a technique based on an infoset grammar to describe
> the syntax, which addresses the lack of clarity of the original syntax
> specification. [...]
>
> Please can you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> stating whether this is an acceptable resolution of the issue.


Yes, the new formalism in the Editor's Draft

    <URL: http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/ >

is *much* better.  In particular, the distinction between
'resourcePropertyElt', 'literalPropertyElt', and (presumably,
once it's fully described, 'emptyPropertyElt') answers my 
original question.

This also answers another question I had concerning the
interpretation of unprefixed attributes (rdf:ID vs. ID).


--Joe English

  jenglish@flightlab.com