W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

[closed] Re: rdf:RDF should be optional

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:24:34 +0100
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <20031008122434.4de85716.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

Hi Mark

The RDF Core WG considered the issue you raised on rdf:RDF
and decided at the 2003-10-03 telcon
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0071.html
to accept it.

We have made rdf:RDF (more) optional; that is, if one node element is
inside rdf:RDF, the rdf:RDF is optional.  This explicitly allows the
RDF/XML example you gave in your comment:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:19:51 -0400 Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
> I don't believe that rdf:RDF should be required.  I'm familiar with the
> conventional wisdom about a single root element being desirable, but I
> really don't understand what it buys us, at least in this case.  On the
> contrary, I think it's absolutely wonderful to be able to say that this
> is RDF;
> 
> <Person xmlns="some-uri">
>   <name>Mark</name>
> </Person>

<snip/>

We are adding a test case similar to the above to the RDF Core test
cases WD, generating two triples.

At this date there is no published working draft that shows this change
but it is incorporated in the next round of WDs published this week
(hopefully).  The current editor's draft at
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/
contains this change in section 7.2.1.  See the changelog entry at
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/#section-Changes2
for the details.

Please reply, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org whether this response
is an acceptable disposition of your comment.

Thanks

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 07:47:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:33 GMT