- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 13:46:18 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman@aduna.biz>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
New version: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata#rdf-syntax-grammar Incorporating Graham's qualifier, a typo fix from Pat Hayes, and a closing observation I could do with someone reviewing (tried to interpret Dave's IRC comment that this was really 2 issues...): [[ Serialization of datatyped empty literals is not anticipated by the RDF/XML grammar. This is believed by several developers and former WG-members to be an omission in the grammar defined by the RDF/XML Syntax Specification: a bug was reported (and acknowledged by the editor), relating to the use of an rdf:datatype attribute on empty RDF properties. See the archived mailing list thread for technical details. In addition to the question of the RDF/XML grammar's syntactic completeness, note that this issue identifies a construct that occurs within RDF graphs that cannot be serialized in the RDF/XML syntax. ]] Is that last claim right? Is there a difference btw between <foo:prop rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string" ></foo:prop> ...versus: <foo:prop rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"/> ...in terms of this issue and the grammar productions? Dan
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 17:46:19 UTC