W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Error in RDF/XML Syntax Specification?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:17:22 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050405171325.0207e468@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 07:27 05/04/05 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
> > We can't change the recommendation as such, afaik. But we can record
> > things in an Errata (see
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata#rdf-syntax-grammar) such that
> > future WGs could pick up these issues and publish new WDs based on them.
> >
> > I'm not sure how much structure we have around review of errata text.
> > Basically the problem falls back on the W3C Team, when there's no WG in
> > place. In this case, we have a SW Coordination Group who meet weekly,
> > I suggest the following plan of action:
> >
> >  - someone (perhaps Dave, as the relevant spec Editor) draft an Errata
> >    section on this problem, citing the www-rdf-comments thread.
>
>I've made a start:
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata#datatyped-empty-literals
>
>Suggestions/additions/fixes welcomed.

I'm sorry to bang on about this due process thing, but I feel that, as 
drafted, the proposed text seems to say that there definitely is an error 
in the specification which I'd be reluctant to assert without wider consensus.

I suggest:

[[
Serialization of datatyped empty literals is not anticipated by the RDF/XML 
grammar.

This is believed by several developers to be an omission in the grammar 
defined by the RDF/XML Syntax Specification: a bug was reported (and 
acknowledged by the editor), relating to the use of an rdf:datatype 
attribute on empty RDF properties. See the mailing list thread for 
technical details.
]]

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:16:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:34 GMT