- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:51:56 +0100
- To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Art,
Thanks for reviewing these.
Art Barstow wrote:
> is the following legal:
>
> <rdf:DF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> <rdf:_1/>
> </rdf:RDF>
I know of no reason why it does not conform to the rules of the language.
>
> If so, it would be good to add a test for this special case.
I've updated
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test005.rdf
to include it.
>
> WRT #6:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test006.nt
>
> why is this triple added to the last sub-case:
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test006.rdf#e3>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1> _:stmt1 .
The last subcase is:
<rdf:Bag rdf:bagID="e3"/>
The presence of the bagID triggers the reification of statements in the
description and placing them in the bag. In paragraph
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2001Jun/att-0017/01-rdfms.html#p228
it states:
A Description expressed in typedNode form by production [6.13] is
equivalent to the same Description expressed by production [6.3] ...
Therefore this statement is equivalent to:
<rdf:Description rdf:bagID="e3">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag"/>
</rdf:Description>
and thus a reified statement of the rdf:type statement should be placed in
the bag. Unless I have missed something, that is what the statement you are
asking about does.
Brian
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 12:53:41 UTC