- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:49:43 -0000
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I haven't understood this thread but wonder if the following is relevant.
In ARP, I thought I implemented para 196, viewing the URL to be a typo for
the normal rdf namespace. The ARP implementation is that (at least in strict
mode) any unrecognised rdf attribute or element generates zero triples for
the enclosing element. e.g.
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:foo="bar">
<rdf:value>
<rdf:Description>
<rdf:value>bar</rdf:value>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:value>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
generates no triples (despite there being an unproblematic subdocument with
the rdf:foo attribute deleted).
There are implementation problems like what to do with:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description >
<rdf:value>
<rdf:Description rdf:foo="bar">
<rdf:value>bar</rdf:value>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:value>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Does this produce one triple or no triples? Para 196 is unclear on this.
I would support 'deleting' this paragraph. In particular I feel that the new
specs should on principle not define the processing behaviour for ill-formed
documents.
i.e. the quote rdf is wrong - and that is all the specs say. The para 196
behaviour is legal, as is to simply ignore the attribute, as is to core
dump, as is to launch world war three (well legal from an RDF processing
point of view, not international law!).
The grammar spec should describe the graphs corresponding to legal
documents; and no more.
Jeremy
Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 05:50:16 UTC