Re: Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-empty-property-elements

On Fri, 18 May 2001, Art Barstow wrote:

> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 09:12:36AM +0100, Jan Grant wrote:
> >
> > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> >   xmlns:random="http://random.ioctl.org/#">
> >
> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://random.ioctl.org/#bar">
> >   <random:someProperty rdf:parseType="Literal"
> >     rdf:resource="http://random.ioctl.org/#foo" />
> > </rdf:Description>
> >
> > </rdf:RDF>
> >
> > Should be flagged as an error.
>
> The above of course is an error because it violates:
>
>  [6.12] propertyElt    ::= '<' propName idAttr? '>' value '</' propName '>'
>                          | '<' propName idAttr? parseLiteral '>'
>                                literal '</' propName '>'
>
> - a propertyElt with a parseType="Literal" attribute can only
> have an ID attribute.
>
> However, I'm wondering if you were trying to differentiate the
> following as being illegal syntax by [6.12]:
>
>  a.  <random:someProperty rdf:parseType="Literal"/>
>
> and the following as being legal:
>
>  b.  <random:someProperty rdf:parseType="Literal"></random:someProperty>

Nope. I've always considered them to be equivalent.

> My take on [6.12] is that a. is not legal and b. is legal.  If
> this is true, I don't understand why there is this restriction
> and would propose that both be legal.

This restriction shouldn't exist; I'm not aware of any parsers that
enforce it - both should be legal an equivalent.


-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Spreadsheet through network. Oh yeah.

Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 04:38:02 UTC