- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:55:43 -0000
- To: "Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Bluff! Jan: > - we recognise the current irregularity in the RDF syntax with regards > to this production; however, the current production reflects accurately > the letter of the RDF M+S. Removing the irregularity from this > production completely would require a change in the interpretation of > rdf:ID which (since it would certainly break the meaning of existing RDF > documents*) is beyond the scope of the RDF Core efforts in this regard. > > > Cheers, > jan > > * as asserted numerous times by various RDF core members I looked through the archive and could not see even the assertions let alone links to docs using rdf:ID on empty property elements to name the object resource. I also saw assertions that parsers had implemented the reading of M&S that is currently in the WD. These seemed to be unsubstantiated. A fairly informal survey that I have done suggests a lack of uniformity and significant confusion in the implementation of reification. I expect that once we are done most/all parser writers will need to revisit their reification code since as far as I can tell there is no industry consensus behind any one reading of M&S. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 11:00:45 UTC