- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:34:50 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy and I talked about the resolution of
rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr after chatting about the syntax WD in
general and agree that we both see the two alternatives as
1) rdf:ID is always allowed and reifys the 1 statement
<parent node URI> <propertyElt URI> <rdf:resource URI> .
2) rdf:ID is never allowed. If you want to reify that
statement, use the expanded form rather than this abbreviation.
Jeremy slightly prefers #1 but could live with #2 ("I could 'concur'
with such a position"). I don't really care as long as we pick one
only way, thus I propose #1.
Both of these answers changes what the existing M&S says but it is
something that hardly anyone used/uses. For the latter reason, I did
suggest deleting it in my original text but I'm happy with #1, #2 above.
I propose to close this issue by making the appropriate change
to the syntax grammar in production
http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#emptyPropertyElt
from
[attributes]=set((idAttr | resourceAttr)?, bagIdAttr?, propertyAttr*)
to
[attributes]=set(idAttr?, resourceAttr?, bagIdAttr?, propertyAttr*)
[ WAS 4th clause of
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#propertyElt
'<' propName idRefAttr? bagIdAttr? propAttr* '/>'
Plus more words to say what the combinations of these do when I write
the mappings.
Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 11:34:51 UTC