- From: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:45:45 -0400
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 08:16:19PM -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote: > On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 02:48 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > > > E.g. when exchanging RDF between systems (the reason for > > standardization), do we really want to specify that the > > existence of a node, without properties, is significant? If > > so, we must define the significance, and that looks awkward to > > me. > > Can you explain why this seems awkward to you? It seems like a > perfectly reasonable thing to do to me. > > The alternative seems to declare that: > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="foo" /> > > means: > > <foo> rdf:type rdfs:Resource . > > which seems even more awkward. As a data point it would be interesting to know how current implementations deal with empty Description elements. SiRPAC generates zero triples for the following test cases: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description/> </rdf:RDF> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description></rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description about="some_uri"></rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> I don't see anything in the spec that says whether this behavior is correct or not. Art ---
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 08:45:45 UTC