- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:57:58 +0200
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: www-rdf-validator@w3.org
On 31 Aug 2005, at 03:23, Martin Duerst wrote: > There is an option on the validator input form to say that you don't > have rdf:RDF. Ah. Thanks. Still, I can't think of a good reason why I should have to fiddle with "advanced options" to do a simple validation. The validator should be able to figure that out on its own. Richard > > 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 10:58:07 UTC