Re: forest grammar/tree regular expression for RDF (fwd)

>On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
>(on Jonathan Borden's RELAXNG work...)
>
>(msg trimmed to focus on rdf:Description question)
>
> > > I have specified this as a RELAXNG schema for RDF
> > > http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/RDF1.rng in terms of solidifying 
>the RDF XML
> > > syntax under the issue:
> > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-formal-grammar
> >
> > Very nice!
> >
> > It has a few special cases that I don't think are necessary
> > (e.g. rdf:value is just another propertyElement/propertyAttribute,
> > and rdf:Description is just a typedNode) but other than
> > that, it seems to be quite a compact and precise description of
> > the RDF syntax.
> >
>
>[...]
>
> > Production 4 is ambiguous, no?
> >
> > 4.type description =
> >              rdf:Description[
> >                      idAboutAttr?,
> >                      bagIdAttr?,
> >                      propAttr?,
> >                      propertyElt*
> >              ] |
> >              typedNode
> >
> > <rdf:Description/> matches both alternatives, no?
> >
> > 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.
>
>I've seen nothing in RDF elsewhere to support the claim that RDF defines
>such a class; M+S is pretty clear that the rdf:Description construct is
>pure encoding syntax.

Dan, can you (briefly) elaborate on what you mean by 'encoding syntax' ?

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 13:53:37 UTC