Re: some questions on RefactoringRDF draft

[....]

> Whilst we have not defined a processing model for RDF, I think the
> answer to the question asked is that NO an RDF processor
> is not expected to process arbritary XML.  It is only expected to
> process RDF/XML.
> 
> There is some discussion in the WG about whether the <rdf:RDF></rdf:RDF>
> brackets are necessary to mark RDF XML, but I think that's a different
> question.

maybe different...but closely related. 


> 
> Where did you see a suggestion that typed nodes needed to be prefixed?
> Maybe we can make this more clear there.

This seems to be implied by the revised EBNF table 3.1 rule 6.19 

> 
> 
> > 
> > > ALL attributes MUST be prefixed
> > >
> > > Does that imply an RDF processor MUST attempt to map all
> > > wellformed XML but will fail almost certainly??
> > >
> > > Maybe it's not ALL attributes, but just those, which are
> > > supposed to come from RDF??
> > 
> > Yes, a parser is only supposed to deal with the RDF portions of
> > a document.
> 
> There is no requirement that an RDF processor process all of XML,
> only the RDF portions.  But within RDF/XML all attributes must
> be prefixed.  Actually there is at least one exception to that
> rule, xmlns, but this is a special case.
> 
> I have been thinking in terms of eith/or scenarios - in which some
> XML is either RDF or its not.  If it is then it must conform to
> all the rules.
> 
> Are you suggesting that there are scenarios we should consider where
> you would like an RDF processor to extract what it can from the bits
> of the XML that match the RDF and ignore the rest?  If so, a real
> use case would be very helpful to us.

<rdf:RDF> </rdf:RDF> and the "ignore rule" in RDF M&S sec6 are useful to that. I'll get back to that later.

> 
> > 
> > > RDF M&S requires ALT containers non-empty. This restriction
> > > seems to be removed - intentionally??
> > 
> > Hmm, I was not aware of this issue. Brian, can you perhaps shed
> > some light here?
> 
> So far as I am aware this restriction has not been removed, though
> we have not finished discussing containers yet.  What was it that
> suggested to you this restriction is gone?

rule 6.27 first clause: "<rdf:Alt" idAttr?">"member+"<rdf:Alt>" has been deleted. 
-------------

Section 3.1 of the draft seems not of same content as section 4.2. For instance 4.23 item 8 is not 
reflected in 3.1. 

How an RDF processor is supposed to handle 4.18 ?? ...again a question about processing, sorry.

Cheers
rs

> 
> Brian
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 05:53:44 UTC