Re: Clarifying RDF #2: a Schematron schema

Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
>
> > Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>
> > > I wonder how they wrote their RELAX schema (and also Michael's XML
> Schema
> > > schema).
> >
> > Err, "they" meaning I ...
>
> Oops, sorry about that.  I did not mean to be rude or offhand; I had
> forgotten that Jonathan wrote that
> RELAX schema, not the RELAX group.

No offense taken, it seemed that you might be under the impression that the
RELAX group was somehow behind this, and I just wanted to set the record
straight :-)

>
> > ...simply:
> >
> > 1) sat down with a text editor, a copy of the RDF 1.0 M&S rec in one
> window
> > and a copy of the latest RELAXNG draft/tutorial in another window.
> > 2) went through the M&S EBNF productions in section 6 in turn and
> converted
> > each production into RELAXNG.
> > 3) used James Clark's validator against a few test cases and fixed the
> > patterns until I didn't get any errors.
>
> How does your grammar handle rdf:Property?

Not a problem. rdf:Property matches the typedNode pattern. If one wanted to
_only_ match elements _with_ a namespace and not in the same namespace as
the schema this pattern would be used:

<define name="example">
    <element>
     <not>
        <choice>
            <nsName/>
            <nsName ns=""/>
        </choice>
     </not>
    </element>
</define>

The thing that the schema _doesn't_ allow is the

  <rdf:Property ID="foo">

pattern, because the recent WG decision deprecates unqualified attributes
(rdf:ID is used instead).

>
> For example, does your RELAX schema handle the following RDFS-spec
> fragment (from RDFS  7.1)?

On glance it should work with the following changes:

1) declare default namespace, so that <MaritalStatus> becomes qualified.
2) change ID attributes to rdf:ID

-Jonathan

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 13:22:21 UTC