Re: rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity

Dan,

I have noted your implementation feedback, along with other similar comments
in:

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#attention-developers

Decisions will be reviewed in the light of implementor feedback received.

Brian

  

Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 29 August 2001 14:01:02 UTC