- From: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:11:39 -0400
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 09:23:39AM -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > So if the above is a typedNode [and I thank Brian for catching
> > my error], then the triples suggested in:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0138.html
> >
> > don't seem to be correct.
>
> Why is this? It was my understanding that the example was in the context of
> Brian's proposal in which the special container syntax was removed and
> containers were made ordinary typedNodes. Thus, in his proposal this would
> be perfectly legal, and so it should be defined.
Hi Aaron,
The proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Dec/0082.html
say:
[[
4. Proposal
========
1) Parsers MAY NOT implement the specific productions
6.25-6.31. This has no effect on the language as
anything that matches these productions also matches
other productions in the grammar.
]]
Are you [or Brian] saying this means that rules 6.25-6.31 will be
removed?
Art
---
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 11:12:43 UTC