Re: Attention Users! (RDF Core WG Decisions)

Hello Aaron,

thanks for summarizing the recent RDF Core WG decisions, please continue to do
that! I believe it is great for us "non-full-timers" on RDF to follow recent
developments.

Two comments (possibly issues?) :

With the solution of rdfms-empty-property-elements the meaning of <rdf:li/>
is clear, but though it may be usefull it is not allowed by the current M+S
production rules. The same applies to <rdf:RDF/> (an empty model). Please add
some rules for these cases to the production set, otherwise RDF is not
compatible to XML which defines <ns:something/> as an abbreviation of
<ns:something></ns:something>.

The example you give in the solution to rdf-containers-formalmodel is not
valid RDF according to the current M+S production rules. They only allow
the rdf:_n form as attributes, for elements the rdf:li form must be used.
Accordingly, current parsers transform rdf:li XML to rdf:_n triples, and
serializers transform rdf:_n triples back to rdf:li XML. If the example is
valid, I assume you are going to allow rdf:_n XML elements in the transfer
syntax. But then please explain when to use each form, and when to transform
between them.

Ciao,
Karsten Otto