Re: some questions on RefactoringRDF draft

>>>Roland Schwaenzl said:
> Brian McBride said:
> > 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 

That is why we are not going to continue to use that exact format in
the EBNF to be the definitive syntax.  That format cannot capture
that there is an assocation between an XML element and a namespace
which is EITHER by a default in-scope XML namespace OR an explict
namespace on the XML element.  It is too specific on the mechanism.

In other words, ignore the earlier sections which are for recording
the process of modifying and consider section 4 as an indication of
what will be the kind of thing we will be using.  The XML Infoset
allows the association above to be defined but without specifying the
particular mechanism as to how that is provided by XML, which is the
business of the XML specifications and interfaces (e.g DOM, SAX), not


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

This work-in-progress clearly states that what happens after the
syntax matches, and and what statements should be emitted is the next
step in the process of evolving this document. From the Introduction:

  This process is not yet complete, in that the final step is
  defining for each syntax production which RDF statements are added
  to the resulting model (if any).

However, I suspect that what happens to processing other parseTypes
is going to be entirely application dependent.  In this case, all we
can do is encourge APIs and applications to provide a suitable
interface to the content of the element.


Received on Thursday, 13 September 2001 07:31:25 UTC