- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:07:37 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote: > If you have any comments on this resolution, please send them > www-rdf-comments@w3.org. I'm sorry to say I'm not satisfied; I tried to implement this solution and found that the idea of <li> matching typednode is a significant implementation burden without satisfactory justification. For details, see containers test0004 baffles me Dan Connolly (Tue, Aug 21 2001) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Aug/0116.html et. seq. > In > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0018.html > > you raised an issue concerning an ambiguity in the RDF grammar which was > recorded in the RDF issues list. > > The RDFCore WG has resolved and closed this issue: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity > > Resolution: > > On 29th June 2001, the WG decided that containers will match the typed node > production > in the grammar (M&S Section 6, production 6.13) and that the container specific > productions (productions 6.25 to 6.31) and any references to them be removed > from the > grammar. rdf:li elements will be translated to rdf:_nnn elements when they are > found > matching either a propertyElt (production 6.12) or a a typedNode (production > 6.13). The > decision includes a set of test cases. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2001 10:08:42 UTC