- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:04:54 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
From where I left off ... << 7.2.1 Grammar start So should I say more or less? >> I prefer less. << [[We never disallowed rdf:nil did we?]] We didn't micro-decide everything, I asked one, got no replies so made a choice. rdf:nil is a sentinel, we can either: 1) not encourage its use as a class or property and forbid it everywhere 2) not care, and allow it everywhere. Do you want to change to 2) ? >> 2) seems to be more consistent - it is only syntactic terms like rdf:Description that cannot be used as a property; I don't see why using rdf:nil as a class is any more wrong than using rdf:subject as one. 7.2.18 << MUST >> My problem with the MUST was not what you were trying to say, but what you actually said. What you were trying to say is (more or less) that the grammar treats "FooBar" like "Literal"; what you actually said is that processing MUST (i.e. all implementations have to do this way) continue at a rule which some implementations won't even have. (e.g. SNAIL does not follow this framework at all; a conventially parser like VRP works over strings and so cannot be said to have production parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt and so cannot follow this MUST). Yes you have carefully said that implementations only have to have the same effect, that observation makes the MUST incorrect. This is really linked to my observation that the MUST, SHOULD etc terminology is not used sufficiently in this doc to justify its inclusion. It is possible to rephrase in a way that does not use this MUST, cf. Dan's http://www.w3.org/2001/01/mp23 [[ I try to use the word MUST to constrain agents in processes, not to just make declarative statements; i.e. I think it's a misuse of RFC2119 to say things like "2 + 2 MUST be 4" ]] Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 01:00:32 UTC