W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Error in RDF/XML Syntax Specification?

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:08:03 +0100
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman@aduna.biz>, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Message-ID: <20050406100803.7ef7492e@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:28:20 +0300, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> wrote:

> On Apr 5, 2005, at 12:35, ext Graham Klyne wrote:
> >
> > While I agree with David and Arjohn that ""^^<datatype> SHOULD be  
> > expressible,
> I'd like Pat Hayes' in put on that, before we decide this,
> as I recall there being some issues with null lexical forms
> with regards to the model theory.
> It's probably OK, but best to be sure we don't break anything...

The RDF/XML syntax REC has by design and necessity, no dependency on
the RDF Semantics REC, it depends only on RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax REC
which defines what an RDF Triple is:
and an RDF literal (Typed Literal)

What interpretations of RDF triples the RDF Semantics doc makes are
not relevant here (to RDF/XML parsers, serializers)

RDF Concepts does allow 0-length lexical form Typed Literals, so they are
expressible and should be allowed to be encoded in RDF/XML - there are no
XML/technical reasons why not.   An oversight in the grammar.

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 09:09:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:05 UTC