- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:49:21 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>>>Dan Connolly said: <snip/> > Umm... I'm running into the same sort of use/mention issues > here as are all over the RDF 1.0 spec. > > The fact that both XML attributes and RDF properties have > values is one source of confusion. > > The values/objects of statements whose predicate is rdf:type are > not constrained at all, as far as I know, let alone > being constrained to a URI-reference. > > i.e. it's not the case that > > rdf:type rdfs:range xmlschema-datatype:URI-reference. > > right? I would say no. I am describing the RDF/XML syntax as described in RDF M&S which does not require or use RDF Schema or XML Schema. The restrictions is on how the rdf:type property is used in the syntax as an XML attribute. This is mostly done in the grammar EBNF. The syntax references I pointed out in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Aug/0242.html Note: This is about the use of rdf:type as an attribute in *this* XML syntax. It does not restrict what rdf:type can point to in the model or of course, anything in other syntaxes. Although, for all uses I can remember in RDF/XML rdf:type is used with a URI-reference, the following is perfectly legal RDF/XML: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/"> <rdf:type>literal</rdf:type> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> and generates <http://example.org/> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> "literal" . <snip/> > I'm not a big fan of this exception. While we're cleaning up > this mess, I suggest we get rid of it. No. This part of the syntax has a legitimate use and is not too difficult to work out what the grammar meant. We should not just throw out syntax with no good reason. > > Consequences: > > rdf:subject and rdf:predicate if used in XML attribute form will > > generate literal values which are presently forbidden (I think!) > > I think not. They might not make much sense, but they're not forbidden. > > > or maybe just very unexpected. > > quite possibly. After emailing that, I changed my mind on illegal - unspecified would be better. <snip/> Dave
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 18:49:22 UTC