- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:46:24 +0100 (BST)
- To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Art Barstow wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:35:44AM +0100, Jan Grant wrote: > > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Art Barstow wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Hi Jan, > > Good I think we agree on this. > > However, since whether a. implies b. has been an issue: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0128.html > > perhaps the text should specifically state that they are > considered equivalent. Hmm, yeah. I'm wondering if maybe we should provide a grammar like this for the syntax or give it in terms of the XML infoset (or XML schema) - so any future "tweaks" to XML syntax should be incorporated into RDF syntax, maybe. -- 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 (Things I've found in my attic, #2: A hundredweight of pornography.)
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 09:47:35 UTC