- From: Chet Murthy <chet@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:53:03 -0500
- To: Chet Murthy <chet@watson.ibm.com>
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk
From the testcase,
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/resource/"
rdf:type="http://example.org/class/"/>
</rdf:RDF>
I cannot decide if this should be equivalent to
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/resource/">
<rdf:type resource="http://example.org/class/"/>
</rdf:RDF>
or
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/resource/">
<rdf:type>http://example.org/class/"</rdf:type>
</rdf:RDF>
While it is clear that we mean the former (second XML in message),
this means that rdf:type is a special case (cf. the RDF Primer):
One of the abbreviations allowed by RDF/XML is that when properties
are not repeated within an rdf:Description element, and the values
of those properties are literals, the properties can be written as
XML attributes of the rdf:Description element ...
It seems that this example, instead of being equivalent to the Ntripe
<http://example.org/resource/> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://example.org/class/> .
should instead be equivalent to
<http://example.org/resource/> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> "http://example.org/class/" .
--chet--
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 22:30:14 UTC