W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Guide: Legal syntax?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:14:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20021029.171409.26488118.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Guide: Legal syntax?
Date: 29 Oct 2002 16:02:50 -0600

> On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 12:38, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
> > Subject: RE: Guide: Legal syntax?
> > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:14:35 -0600
> > 
> > > Agreed. Will use Peter's prefered version, modified to use 'about'.
> > 
> > Is there really (still) a single-ID requirement?
> 
> I believe so; the test cases editor's draft agrees:
> 
> "Issue: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about  has 2 tests"
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/error1.rdf
> 	-- http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/
> 
> > I see wording to that could be interpreted to have this effect in the new
> > syntax document.
> 
> I'm not sure which one you mean; I haven't been following that one
> very closely...
> 
> >  However, the wording is, in my opinion, very poorly
> > written, so much so that interpreting it as a single-ID requirement
> > requires knowing that there is such a requirement.
> 
> The test case makes it pretty clear to me. If you can
> think of ways to improve the syntax document, please
> send them to www-rdf-comments.

[...]

The wording in question is:

> 5.15 Production idAttr
> 
> attribute(URI = rdf:ID, string-value=rdf-id)
> 
> Constraint: The names used as values of rdf:ID and rdf:bagID attributes
> must be unique in a single RDF/XML document since they come from the same
> set of names. This applies with respect to the in-scope base-uri property
> of the current element; so the same value can appear on different elements
> in the same document but only if the in-scope base-uri values were
> different. 
> 
> Test: Indicated by test014.rdf and test014.nt

Which doesn't even reference the test you mention.

peter
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 17:14:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT