W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

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

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:38:34 +0000
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <17042.1017002314@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>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

> 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...

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:11 UTC