- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:54:02 +1000
- To: "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
From: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> > it used like this: > [attributes]=set(idAboutAttr?, bagIdAttr?, propertyAttr*), > > i.e the propertyAttr term can be repeated 0 or more times. Each of > these propertyAttr uses can be either a typeAttr or propAttr. I > think this does not restrict the use of multiple rdf:type properties > and/or other namespaced properties in any way. Does that make sense? Specifying the schema as a grammar makes things quite difficult for developing a Schematron schema for RDF. (I have tried to create another one, b.t.w. for the new syntax: things seems a lot clearer than the old) Because one has to look at the new "grammar" and try to guess what the intent of the productions are supposed to be. Which is a shame, because RDF clearly has the kinds of patterns that Schematron can express. And things like rdf:_1 (which otherwise doom RDF to unmaintainability) should pose no problems either. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2001 08:48:13 UTC