- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:14:50 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Dan Connolly wrote: > Dan Brickley wrote: > > > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Dan Connolly wrote: > [...] > > > As I say, I don't see any need to special-case > > > rdf:Description in the grammar. > > > > If we take this reading of the syntax, then the presence of > > rdf:Description asserts an rdf:type relationship between the described > > resource and an rdfs:Class called rdf:Description. > > That's not what I meant; I don't think it's what I said, > either. > > The question of what triples a document denotes once you've > decided it matches the grammar is a whole other kettle of > worms. Yes, in that part, we'd need an exception ala > > Don't emit a type arc if the element name is rdf:Description > > But that needn't gunk up the grammar. OK, fair enough. I read you as suggesting this was just another typedNode, with all the usual properties of a typed node, such as encoding claims about rdf:types... I read your "don't see any need to special-case rdf:Description in the grammar" as "don't see any need to special-case rdf:Description in the syntax". Dan
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 11:14:50 UTC