RE: not-id-and-resource-attr

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 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.

Mea culpa, the * should have been at the end of the sentence.


-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Ever see something and think, "I've gotta leverage me some of that?"
Odds are, you were looking at a synergy and didn't even know it.

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 11:27:42 UTC