- From: Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:29:39 -0700
- To: <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
All right, I give up. There is a practice, exhibited in the OWL Reference Appendix B OWL RDF Schema <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-ref-20030818/#appB> that I don't understand. It is also employed in the file that is linked from that section. I saw this in the current working draft of the RDF Primer, and I thought it was simply a mistake or over-simplification in the examples. The practice I am referring to is the use of 1. An XML 1.0 document declaration, combined with 2. A Document Type Declaration that provides only an internal DTD for the purpose of making some entity definitions. There are no element markup declarations, including for the root identified in the Document Type Declaration. I see in the XML 1.0 section on Conformance, <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-conformance>, that a non-validating processor would certainly accept this practice. Is that the deal? RDF is an application that *REQUIRES* the use of a non-validating XML processor? Is this said anywhere? I haven't found it. -- Dennis Validation Experience with the OWL RDF Schema: ---------------------------------------------- I thought that presence of a Document Type Declaration constituted an assertion that the XML document be [DTD] valid, even though the processor might not validate the DTD. Of course, so does my validating XML editor plug-in (in jEdit) and the W3C HTML Validator (that also validates XML). Silly us. The XSV 2.5-2 Validator is more tolerant. It simply notes that there is no markup declaration for the root element and then proceeds to conduct "lax" validation. Then it produces a long list of reports on how it can't find schema definitions that it can use. I didn't research that one any further. Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1, surprisingly, loads and displays the OWL RDF Schema without complaint. Considering that it will refuse to present an invalid XML document under other conditions (and that includes some cases of valid XML documents that it pukes on), that's remarkable. Is there some out-of-band agreement that I don't know about? I wonder. -- dh Dennis E. Hamilton ------------------ AIIM DMware Technical Coordinator mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 http://DMware.info ODMA Support: http://ODMA.info OpenPGP public key fingerprint BFE5 EFB8 CB51 8781 5274 C056 D80D 0C3F A393 27EC
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 18:31:10 UTC