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

Re: Common RDF parser bug?

From: Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:27:40 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <200201211427.PAA22502@scarlett.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, d.allsopp@signal.qinetiq.com

David Allsopp wrote:

> I understand your rationale, but do you see my point that a user of an
> RDF parser would reasonably expect it to produce a valid RDF graph as
> defined by the M&S in all cases?  Are these constraints not an integral
> part of the RDF standard? If such checking is not in the parser, where
> should it be?  Are we saying that to make any use of RDF, one must
> always include a DAML-like reasoning engine as well as an RDF parser? 
> 
> The constraints here are quite specific, so I am not clear why they
> should be pushed out to a higher-level language rather than just being
> implemented directly in code.
> 


RDF M&S should be clarified on 
what the class "Statement" exactly stands for. 

The comments given in the class definitions 

at http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# 
and http://www.w3.org/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/ 

differ. 


rs
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 09:27:44 GMT

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