- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:03:49 -0400
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote: > > Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > > rdf:li AND rdf:_1 AS TYPES (reserving rdf: namespace) > > ========================== > > rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test005.rdf explicitly allows rdf:li and > > rdf:_1 to be types. > > > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > > xmlns:foo="http://foo/"> > > <rdf:_1/> > > <rdf:li/> > > <rdf:li/> > > </rdf:RDF> > > This is a bizarre corner case where the WG defined the equivalent triples > primarily to make sure an answer was defined. There was a choice between > making it illegal and allowing it. It's a marginal call. There were no > particularly strong reasons for going one way or the other. > > > & what about > > > > <rdf:Description rdf:Description="text string"/> > > > > whereas presumably the insanely equivalent > > > > <rdf:Description> > > <rdf:Description>text string</rdf:Description> > > </rdf:Description> > > > > is still an error. > I'm not sure what to make of the reference to insanity here. > I personally would say they were both errors. I'll refer these test > cases to the WG so we make sure the result is clearly defined. There are > more too, e.g. > <rdf:Description> > <rdf:Bag>this one is really silly</rdf:Bag> > </rdf:Description> > On a minor process point, this is the sort of thing that is probably best > sent to www-rdf-comments@w3.org. It is easy enough to exclude the RDF namespace from the typedNode pattern, for example the regular expression: <element> <not> <nsName ns=""/> </not> ... </element> excludes elements with no namespace. an <nsName ns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/> could be easily inserted. A properly defined grammar for RDF solves these sorts of issues. -Jonathan
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 21:09:12 UTC