- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:35:44 +0100 (BST)
- To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
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