W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: RDF Core WG draft of RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised) for review

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:19:41 +0000
To: Daniel Krech <eikeon@eikeon.com>
cc: "www-rdf-comments@w3.org" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <29541.1035843581@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Daniel Krech said:

> Ah yes, URI references and RDF Literals are linked to in section 5.2
> later on. Maybe add a note to Blank node Identifiers that there is no
> mention in RDF Concepts to link to yet. Only other term that I noticed
> that seems to get used a fair bit throughout much of the syntax spec is
> nodes... perhaps a link could be added for it if it does not already
> have one.

Ok, noted and will fix.

> > If you mean also things like "node element" defined here, I can add
> > some more backward links to these.
> I was fine with those being blank and not universal since they are in
> the same document :)



> "Blank nodes have local, document-scoped identifiers" works better for
> me than "blank nodes have no URI label". But I think I am mostly after
> additional definition/clarification that falls within another document.
> > As to what the (blank) nodes mean or their purpose, that's a model or
> > even more of a modelling style question and not for this document.
> Agreed. I should send these comments toward the RDF Concepts document.

I think the editors already know, I've emailed them about this.


> I was actually wondering why it was allowed as a nodeElementURI... since
> rdf:nil is not a class. 

Yes, but it would still be allowed as a node element, like in the
schema case, i.e. there will be something like

  <rdf:Description rdf:about="&rdfns;nil">

in the rdf-namespace RDF schema.  Not a class, just a resource


Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 17:21:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:01 UTC