- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:25:19 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan, I agree that it would be good to get work on this started. Art? Brian Dan Connolly wrote: > > I agree with the gist of your suggestion, Graham, > but before anybody creates a new issue, I consider > this to fall under an existing issue: > > "Summary: The grammar in the RDF 1.0 spec is informal and > should be replaced. Something based on XML Schema should be > considerd." > > -- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-formal-grammar > > Has that issue reached sifficient priority that we > should attack it? > > Art, if you'd be willing to own that issue, I'd be > willing to work with you on it. > > But I'm also happy for a few other issues to be > addressed first; I have a ways to go before I'm > ready to suggest a replacement for the whole RDF > grammar. > > Graham Klyne wrote: > > > > Having just read through the XML infoset CR [1], which is commendably brief > > and to-the-point, I note in particular the section 3 that sets out > > requirements for other specifications to be conformant to this spec. > > > > I am thinking that, in redrafting the XML syntax of the RDF core, there may > > be value in making its relationship to XML infoset the primary definition > > Quite; if we use XML Schema and/or XSLT for our formal > grammar, we get that for free (more or less). > > > (hence keeping the RDF specification away from being caught up standard XML > > syntax issues -- such as empty property elements). A direct BNF for > > RDF/XML could also be included for informational purposes if still required. > > > > #g > > -- > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 03:25:58 UTC