- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: 2001年9月13日 12:37:35 +0100
- To: www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- CC: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Message-ID: <32006.1000381055@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Rick Jelliffe said: > The draft for the refactored syntax looks much clearer. > > One point that seems a little uncertain to me is whether the > new productions are supposed to be interpreted > open or closed. I think they are meant to closed, if you mean that they define the entire scope of legal forms. I recognise that in filling out this, it is possible I have missed out some legal forms. This is a mistake if I have done this. > For example, take 4.12 propertyAttr: it seems > that if a typed-node element has an rdf:type attribute, it cannot have > any attributes from any other namespace. If it does not have > an rdf:type then the element can only have one attribute in > a non-RDF namespace. > > Is that correct? I don't think so. propertyAttr is always used in the same form. In typedNode http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20010906/#typedNode it used like this: [attributes]=set(idAboutAttr?, bagIdAttr?, propertyAttr*), i.e the propertyAttr term can be repeated 0 or more times. Each of these propertyAttr uses can be either a typeAttr or propAttr. I think this does not restrict the use of multiple rdf:type properties and/or other namespaced properties in any way. Does that make sense? Dave
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2001 07:37:37 UTC