- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:21:52 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <ottoka@cs.tu-berlin.de>, <barstow@w3.org>
Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> <rdf:li />
> does not match the container specific production for rdf:li, i.e.
> production 6.30. All production 6.30 options require the element to
> have (possibly emtpy)
> content.
Well then make it into:
<rdf:li></rdf:li>
since the two are equivalent in XML.
> <rdf:Description >
> <foo:bar />
> </rdf:Description>
>
> The foo:bar element must match production 6.12. This production has only one
> option which allows an empty element. This structure should therefore be
> interpreted as matching the last option in production 6.12, in which the
> object of the statement is a resource.
I don't see how this is true -- the spec remains ambiguous. The proper
treatment of the case where the property is an empty element with no
resource attribute is unspecified. You have not clarified the specification.
More commentary on this is in the issues I presented last night,
specifically:
Can properties have no value?
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1999-08/0001.html
RRS says use a genid:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1999-09/0015.html
Cowan says use empty literal:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1999-09/0016.html
--
Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| The Info Network
<http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://theinfo.org>
AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| the way you want the web to be
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 08:24:29 UTC