- From: Joe English <jenglish@flightlab.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 10:05:35 -0800
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
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
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 13:02:45 UTC