There is an option on the validator input form to say that you don't have rdf:RDF. Regards, Martin. At 06:18 05/08/31, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >Hi, > >This is probably just me being dense, but I can't figure out why the >validator rejects this: > ><rdf:Description xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax- ns#"> > <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://example.org/Foo"/> ></rdf:Description> > >I expect it to produce this triple: > > [] rdf:type <http://example.org/Foo> . > >But the validator complains: > > Error: Your document does not contain any RDF statement. > >According to [1], the top-level rdf:RDF can be omitted if there's >only one element inside. So what's wrong about the document above? > >Thanks and best regards, >Richard > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-complete- document >Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2005 02:45:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 20:16:59 UTC