Re: Tracking RDF standard

It seems the issue list should be clearer about this point.  I've added 
the following text in the issues document in the Attention Developers
section on containers:

  Please note that this decision does not mean that containers have been
  dropped from RDF. The original grammar was ambiguous, with containers
  matching two sets of productions. The container specific productions
  have been removed from the grammar, which means that containers now 
  match the typed node production.

Brian


Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> (+cc:www-rdf-comments, dave beckett)
> 
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Rick Parrish wrote:
> 
> > This is probably way too early to ask but ...
> >
> > What are plans to update mozilla's RDF tools to
> > conform to the newest working draft?
> >
> > [ *poof* Alt, Bag, and Seq are gone! ]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/
> 
> I can't speak for the Moz-hacking folks, but I can say a bit about the RDF
> Core WG and in particular this decision.
> 
> First up, there's no need for panic! RDF still has
> Alt, Bag and Seq; the only difference is that the special casing they
> received in the RDF XML grammar is no longer considered necessary.
> 
> This suits the current Mozilla implementation rather well actually: Moz
> shoves an rdf:about attribute on Bags, Seqs etc because it likes to
> specify URIs to name containers. The original RDF Model+Syntax spec
> doesn't let you do this, really; this means that if you want to treat this
> Mozilla dialect of RDF as legal RDF, you have to consider things like <Seq
> rdf:about="some-uri">... as matching the typedNode production in the RDF
> grammar. Since the new RDF draft treats all rdf:Seq/Alt/Bag as simply more
> typed nodes (albeit with a bit of magic for interpreting rdf:li), I don't
> think this will be a problem for Mozilla.
> 
> Dan

Received on Monday, 10 September 2001 06:47:34 UTC