- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:55:28 +0200
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dave wrote: > The various parsers do different things on this RDF/XML - which is > wrong - so we must define one way or forbid it. I agree with Dan C on this. The M&S grammar is clear. rdf:type takes a URI reference as an attribute, everything else takes a string. My view is, unless the implementation community have made plausible mistakes, we should not consider changing the spec. To me, this mistake is not sufficiently plausible. If you want to give a URI for an rdf:subject property (or any other) it is not hard (the rdf:resource attribute in a property element rule). I think the change you are considering is just making life more difficult for parser developers with insufficient compensation for rdf document writers. In particular, I hope there are not people writing reified triples into documents without any tool support. If there is tool support then the current syntax is OK. If there isn't tool support then the model is overly complex, and any syntax for an explicit reification is a nightmare. To be clear: <?xml version="1.0"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <!-- Test reified statement using attributes only --> <rdf:Description rdf:type="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Statement" rdf:subject="http://example.com/resource" rdf:predicate="http://example.com/predicate" rdf:object="literal" /> </rdf:RDF> _:id1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Statement> . _:id1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#subject> "http://example.com/resource" . _:id1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#predicate> "http://example.com/predicate" . _:id1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#object> "literal" . Note this is different from both the other two versions we've had! This is clearly an issue :-(. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 14:46:17 UTC