- From: Karsten-A. Otto <ottoka@cs.tu-berlin.de>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:21:19 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: me@aaronsw.com
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hello Aaron, thanks for summarizing the recent RDF Core WG decisions, please continue to do that! I believe it is great for us "non-full-timers" on RDF to follow recent developments. Two comments (possibly issues?) : With the solution of rdfms-empty-property-elements the meaning of <rdf:li/> is clear, but though it may be usefull it is not allowed by the current M+S production rules. The same applies to <rdf:RDF/> (an empty model). Please add some rules for these cases to the production set, otherwise RDF is not compatible to XML which defines <ns:something/> as an abbreviation of <ns:something></ns:something>. The example you give in the solution to rdf-containers-formalmodel is not valid RDF according to the current M+S production rules. They only allow the rdf:_n form as attributes, for elements the rdf:li form must be used. Accordingly, current parsers transform rdf:li XML to rdf:_n triples, and serializers transform rdf:_n triples back to rdf:li XML. If the example is valid, I assume you are going to allow rdf:_n XML elements in the transfer syntax. But then please explain when to use each form, and when to transform between them. Ciao, Karsten Otto
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 16:25:21 UTC