- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:22:50 +0100 (BST)
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: > On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 11:21 AM, Dave Beckett wrote: > > > Pretty clearly when rdf:type is used as a property attribute, it is > > defined to take a resource as a value (this is in the grammar). > > It is my opinion that since the grammar refers to an unprefixed > 'type', and we have disallowed that irregularity, this > irregularity should be removed also. It is likely that > processors dealing with valid documents (i.e. prefixed with > rdf:) will already be in line with recent RDF Core decisions. I > think we should also remove the irregularity that causes type to > correspond to a resource and not a literal, thus simplifying the > grammmar, with little impact on backwards compatibility. Unless "little" = "no" impact, I'd have to disagree here. The propAttr stuff is there as an abbreviated shorthand; certainly making rdf:type attributes have a literal interpretation completely removes their usefulness. Dave's idea of including rdf:subjct and rdf:property makes some sense in the light of this; I don't think that you can't handle rdf:object in a similar fashion is too much of a problem (it's a convenient shorthand, nothing more). -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Usenet: The separation of content AND presentation - simultaneously.
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 16:31:06 UTC