- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:17:18 +0100
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
>>>Aaron Swartz said: > For production 6.1 you write that RDF can be: > > "<rdf:RDF>" description* "</rdf:RDF>" | description > > This is a pretty big change, since M&S never allowed RDF > documents without their surrounding <rdf:RDF> tags. I don't > believe the Working Group ever made a decision on this issue. > I'm not certain that I disagree with it, but I feel it's > important for the WG to be aware of the issue. The original grammar says in http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#RDF [6.1] RDF ::= ['<rdf:RDF>'] obj* ['</rdf:RDF>'] and the '[' ... ']' mean optional, at least that's how I interpreted it. It doesn't seem be used correctly according to the referred notation: http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210.html#sec-notation I would have expected this, if rdf:RDF wasn't optional: [6.1] RDF ::= '<rdf:RDF>' obj* '</rdf:RDF>' Ahah, a quote from 2.2.1 The RDF element is a simple wrapper that marks the boundaries in an XML document between which the content is explicitly intended to be mappable into an RDF data model instance. The RDF element is optional if the content can be known to be RDF from the application context. So it does allow it to be omitted. Context to me could include, seeing an rdf:about or other rdf: attribute on the element. For example, is this legal? <?xml version="1.0"?> <a:foo xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:a="http://example.org/" rdf:about="http://example.org/resource"/> SiRPAC (W3C version): no statements, no error ARP: no statements, no error Raptor (me): 1 statement CARA: "No RDF found!" error Profium RDF Parser: no statements, no error Looks like I'm out of line here :) I thought it would be useful for hunting for embedded RDF fragments in XML. So thanks for raising this Aaron - I guess you own the issue :) Dave
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2001 12:18:13 UTC