W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-validator@w3.org > July 2002

RE: Problem in RDF validator?

From: <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:29:19 -0400
Message-ID: <5C76D29CD0FA3143896D08BB1743296AB00101@bsebe001.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <alillich@adobe.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-validator@w3.org>

Hi Alan,

Yes, I think your expectation for the unqualified "type"
typedNode is not correct.  [Note the warning about this
from the validator - via the ARP parser.]

For prop1 and prop2 to create similar graphs, I think the
RDF should be changed to:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:ns="ns:test/">

   <ns:prop1>
       <ns:type ns:attr="value"/>
   </ns:prop1>

   <ns:prop2 rdf:parseType="Resource">
       <rdf:type rdf:resource="ns:test/type"/>
       <ns:attr>value"</ns:attr>
   </ns:prop2>

</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

But I'm not following RDF (like I used to) so if you have more
questions, please consider posting them directly to the RDF IG
(www-rdf-interest@w3.org).

Regards,

Art Barstow
---




> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Alan Lillich [mailto:alillich@adobe.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 12:05 PM
> To: Barstow Art (NMP/Boston)
> Cc: www-rdf-validator@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Problem in RDF validator?
> 
> 
> on 6/28/02 9:56 AM, Art.Barstow@nokia.com at 
> Art.Barstow@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > Regarding your note to the RDF Validator mail list:
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-validator/2002Jun/
> 0022.html
> 
> > There are two questions - why is the object of triple #1 
> "online:type" instead
> > of: "type". And why is the subject of triple #3: "online:" 
> instead of an empty
> > string.
> 
> The question I was really asking is not why the "online" 
> appears in the
> model for prop2. My question is really why prop1 and prop2 
> are different,
> regardless of which is right/better.
> 
> The examples are shown below. Since prop1 is simply the 
> typedNode form of
> prop2, I would expect them to have the same model. Since they 
> don't, I'm
> left wondering:
> 
> 1. Is the validator is wrong for one or the other?
> 2. Am I wrong in expecting the typeNode form to be truly 
> equivalent to the
> explicit form?
> 
> It seems like your answer about URI expansion might be saying 
> that I am
> wrong in expecting equivalence in this edge case where the 
> type is not in a
> namespace?
> 
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:ns="ns:test/">
> 
>    <ns:prop1>
>        <type ns:attr="value"/>
>    </ns:prop1>
> 
>    <ns:prop2 rdf:parseType="Resource">
>        <rdf:type rdf:resource="type"/>
>        <ns:attr>value"</ns:attr>
>    </ns:prop2>
> 
> <rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> Alan.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 12:30:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:10 UTC