Re: Alternate parseType Issues

Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>> That's an interesting point of view, but if an RDF 1.0 parser is expected to
>> process documents with new parseTypes,
> I think that's my point.  Was RDF 1.0 specified with a viewpoint that an RDF
> processor was NOT expected to process other parseTypes.  What we are
> discovering is that parseType's are being defined by the community.

I'm not talking about processors. I'm simply talking about parsers here. The
RDF spec clearly states in the prose that parsers must accept parseTypes
with other values. That this is not also in the grammar is a mistake. I
don't see how it could be any other way.

>> Well, what I am really getting at is that like it or not, parseTypes are
>> being used as an open extensibility mechanism ... and so we should document
>> this feature.
> So I think the core issue you are raising here then is opening up
> parseType as an extensibility mechanism.
> 
> I guess my question here is whether there is anything actually broken
> with the current spec that needs fixing.  Or is this a this would be nice
> to have feature?

Yes, there is clearly something broken here. I explained one bit above, you
referred to two more:

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

a third is in our goal of remaining compatible with DAML and other
implementers (which I feel requires us to provide a response to their work
on daml:collection) and a fourth is:

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes

I'm sure that there are others.

-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 13:48:01 UTC