- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:38:02 -0400
- To: "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-validator@w3.org
Hi The validator has a checkbox on the submission form for the case when rdf:RDF is ommitted. I'm not sure why it does this separately, rather than just handling their absence, but that should fix your problem I hope. I don't quite follow your point about rdf:Description, since it isn't a class, just a purely syntactic construct at the XML level. Hope this helps, Dan * Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org> [2005-08-16 18:31-0400] > report=I'm not sure this is an error, but section 2.6 of the RDF/XML Syntax Specification states: "When there is only one top-level node element inside rdf:RDF, the rdf:RDF can be omitted although any XML namespaces must still be declared." After Example 7 it states: "It is possible to omit rdf:RDF in Example 7 above since there is only one rdf:Description inside rdf:RDF but this is not shown here." > > This implied to me that I could just drop the rdf:RDF tag and have valid RDF, but doing that with the sample RDF produced an error that it doesn't contain any RDF statements. Given that rdf:Description is a class, it also seemed to me that I could do something like: > > <?xml...> > <my:Class rdf:parseType='Resource'...> > <my:property/> > </my:Class> > > So what exactly do those statements mean in section 2.6? > RDF=<?xml version="1.0"> > <?xml version="1.0"?> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> > <dc:title>World Wide Web Consortium</dc:title> > </rdf:Description> > >
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 22:38:08 UTC