W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2002

Re: parsers that don't need rdf:RDF?

From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:48:33 -0700
To: Bob DuCharme <bobdc@snee.com>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, charles@w3.org
Message-Id: <E18OjFB-0001d4-00@borgia.local>


> I thought I'd seen somewhere -- and now not only can't I cite it, but I've also seen production [1] at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#basic -- that the rdf:RDF element is optional, and I had the impression that only ARP supported this, but now I realized that this is an extra feature of ARP not required by any RDF Recommendation.


I disagree with the conclusion you draw.  rdf:RDF is optional in the nrmative 
BNF, so I think parser should consider it optional.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
A Python & XML Companion - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/11/py-xml.html
XML class warfare - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965
MusicBrainz  metadata - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi
nk14.html
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 15:08:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT