W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2001

RDFCore update

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 21:36:00 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011220212118.030a0068@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi folks,

A short update on RDFCore's activities before I go off on holiday.

Frank Manola has kindly agreed to take on co-editing of the primer document 
and Jan Grant has volunteered to edit the test cases document.

You will have seen that DaveB has published a new syntax WD and we look 
forward to your comments on it.  Please bear in mind that these documents 
are drafts.  They are strongly indicative of the WG's thinking, but we do 
want your feedback and comments on what we are proposing.  And once in a 
while it would be nice to hear that we are on the right track.

We have recently reversed an earlier decision in the light of feedback we 
received.  When we dealt with the container issues, we had said that rdf:li 
was allowed as a typed node.  Feedback from implementors was that this was 
the wrong call, and we have changed it so that rdf:li is now only allowed 
as a property element.  In fact we have decided that all the RDF syntactic 
names, such as rdf:about, rdf:ID, rdf:Description etc are only allowed as 
syntactic constructs in the language.  For example, rdf:ID is not allowed 
as a property element or a typed node.

You will have already noticed the proposal to remove rdf:aboutEach.

Para 196 of M&S stated:

[[
When an RDF processor encounters an XML element or attribute name that is 
declared to be from a namespace whose name begins with the string 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax" and the processor does not recognize 
the semantics of that name then the processor is required to skip (i.e., 
generate no tuples for) the entire XML element, including its content, 
whose name is unrecognized or that has an attribute whose name is 
unrecognized.
]]

Most if not all parsers did not implement this correctly.  Most 
implementors thought the namespace given was a type, which it was not.  The 
WG have decided to remove the effect of this text from the new 
specification.  There will be no special treatment of this namespace.

Have a jolly holiday

Brian
Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 05:43:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT