Re: A comment on rdfms-reification-required

Dave Beckett wrote:

[...]


> 
> No.  This is requiring a processor has an option in handling RDF/XML,
> and I don't want to start doing that without a good reason (this is
> the first time optional RDF/XML processing has come up).
> 
>   Proposal:
>      The WG resolves that a parser MUST emit statements describing a
>      bag of reifed statements when an rdf:bagID attribute is present
>      on the rdf:Description (or typed node) element.  It MUST NOT
>      emit bags of reified statements for rdf:Description (or typed
>      node) elements without rdf:bagID attributes.
> 
> I don't think we can decide this tomorrow since there are no test
> cases.  However, the current draft description for this bit of syntax
>   http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#nodeElement
> describes the triple-production in the above way.


OK - needs more dicsussion.  Its off tomorrows list.

Brian