Re: review comments on rdf-syntax-grammar (version of 25 Mar)

>>>Dan Brickley said:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Dave Beckett wrote:
> > Not allowed at present in the model^Wgraph.
> 
> I must have missed discussion/decision on this, presumably: reading the
> Syntax doc (and comments such as those above, which indicate
> that the Syntax is a `syntax for the graph per MT spec not M+S'99)...

The MT is quite clear; literals are not allowed as subjects.
N-Triples reflects this and the syntax doc also doesn't emit such
N-Triples (not that it could from the current rdf/xml syntax).


> Why is the MT spec not a normative reference, while the (broken old) M+S
> spec is normative? Should implementors code to M+S or new MT's notion of the
> graph? Presumably the latter, since we talk of bNodes etc.
> 
> Is the lack of a normative ref caution stemming from the fact that the MT
> includes stuff like RDFS closure rules, and we don't want to give
> impresssion that syntax can't be implemented without that stuff? (eg.
> see our exchange earlier re my idea for using subPropertyOf to serialise
> XML-unfriendly predicates). 

That's the general reason.

> .. It should somehow be possible to make
> normative ref from syntax to MT without parsers having to have inference
> engines, shouldn't it? (for some sense of 'normative reference').

I guess.

I was wondering about a specific conformance statement something like:

  [[To implement this specification requires reading and understanding:

    XML, XML-NS, Infoset, XML Base, RFC 2396 (URIs), RFC 3023 (XML
    Media Types), RDF Test Cases
  ]]

and for understanding the specification, also RFC 2119 (KEYWORDS).
Maybe Model Theory could be in another related list.


> ps. typo in abstract: specifyed

Fixed
 
> also, the abstract references (by direct hyperlink not footnote) MT
> version of sept 2001 while the footnotes reference the valentine's edition.

Fixed; and in a few other places.


Back to trying to get this draft finished...

Dave

Received on Sunday, 24 March 2002 15:38:36 UTC