- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:38:21 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Do we want to completely rule out "circular" list constructions? Pat On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 11:32 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> 2/ (primer) defining "well-formed" >> (formally in RDF semantics). > > The 2004 Primer suggests well-formed-ness is whatever > parsetype=Collection would give, which is on the right track, but you > can't put literals in parsetype=Collection lists, so that's not the > right definition. Thus my reference to Turtle's list syntax. > > The 2004 Semantics leaves out the notion that you can't have extraneous > links (which also means you can't actually *say* rdf:type rdf:List for > the nodes) for well-formedness, and it's hardly obvious. > > I hadn't realized how close 'well-formed' already was to 'simple lists'; > so, yeah, maybe no one will have a problem with saying well-formed is > what can be serialized in Turtle's list syntax (but I guess in the > Semantics we have to say that without reference to Turtle). That'd be > good. "Well-formed" has a fair amount of "you should do it this way" > in the name. > > Should we make some WellFormedList NotWellFormedList test cases? Can > you think of a way to do this without a new test type? > > -- Sandro > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 19:38:59 UTC