RDF Errata

[rfc-reference]

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#ref-uris points to http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt, but this leads to a 403 Forbidden error. Why would this point to a university copy of the RFC instead of to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt?

[UTF-XML-refs-concepts]

Hard coded reference to XML 1.0 and to Unicode 3.0 are unduly restrictive. Both reference should be exchanged against a normative reference to the generically latest versions of both standards.

See the error submission

[concept-xmlliteral]

The following text, in the second bullet of the subheading "The value space" of Section 5.1 of the RDF Concepts document:

disjoint from the value space of any XML schema datatype [XML-SCHEMA2]

should be replaced by:

disjoint from the value space of any XML schema datatype [XML-SCHEMA2]other present or future datatype (e.g., XML schema [XML-SCHEMA2]), with the exception of future sub- or supertypes of this datatype

The reason for the replacement is that the definition was ambiguous: the relationship between the value space of rdf:XMLLiteral and the value spaces of datatypes not defined in the 2001 version of XML Schema (e.g., rdf:text) is unclear. For example, one cannot infer from the specifications whether there is overlap between the value spaces.

See the error submission for further details.

[UTF-XML-refs-syntax]

Hard coded reference to XML 1.0 and to Unicode 3.0 are unduly restrictive. Both reference should be exchanged against a normative reference to the generically latest versions of both standards.

See the error submission

[datatyped-empty-literals]

Serialization of datatyped empty literals is not anticipated by the RDF/XML grammar.

This is believed by several developers and former WG-members to be an omission in the grammar defined by the RDF/XML Syntax Specification: a bug was reported (and acknowledged by the editor), relating to the use of an rdf:datatype attribute on empty RDF properties. See the archived mailing list thread for technical details. In addition to the question of the RDF/XML grammar's syntactic completeness, note that this issue identifies a construct that occurs within RDF graphs that cannot be serialized in the RDF/XML syntax.

[incorrect-resolve]

Incorrect resolve(...) Calls

Section 6 of the RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised) says that the parent property of the element information item in the XML Infoset is required, but section 6.1.2 Element Event does not create a parent accessor for that event.

Element events therefore do not have a parent accessor, and yet a parent accessor on element events is made use of in a number or sections. See the error submission for further details.

[missing-parent-accessor]

Missing Parent Accessor

Section 6.3.3 Grammar Action Notation of the RDF/XML Syntax Specification defines the resolve action with the signature resolve(e, s), i.e. taking two arguments, and yet we find the following:

u:=uri(identifier:=resolve(a.string-value))
- 7.2.11 Production nodeElement

u:=uri(identifier:=resolve(a.string-value))
- 7.2.21 Production emptyPropertyElt

Which is a bug. I believe that both of these should read:

u:=uri(identifier:=resolve(e, a.string-value))

See the error submission

[syntax-typo-tiple]

Syntax typo “tiple”

"and the following tipletriple is added to the graph" (in 7.2.11 Production nodeElement)

See the error submission

The following text in the instance lemma proof:

To be precise, a Skolemization of E (with respect to V) is a ground instance of E with respect to V with a 1:1 instance mapping that maps each blank node in G to a URI reference that does not appear in G (so the Skolem vocabulary V must be disjoint from the vocabulary of E)

should be replaced by:

To be precise, a Skolemization of E (with respect to V) is a ground instance of E with respect to V with a 1:1 instance mapping that maps each blank node in GE to a URI reference that does not appear in GE (so the Skolem vocabulary V must be disjoint from the vocabulary of E)

See error report and subsequent discussion

The following text, in Paragraph #13 of Section 5.1 of the document:

If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is any rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa: < aaa, x > in D for some x } which satisfies the following extra conditions for every pair < aaa, x > in D:

should be replaced by:

If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is any rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa: < aaa, x > in D for some x } union { "sss"^^aaa : < aaa, x > in D for some x and "sss" in the lexical space of x } which satisfies the following extra conditions for every pair < aaa, x > in D:

See the error report on the mailing list for further technical details.

In section 4.4. the document says:

Since every rdfs-interpretation is an rdf-interpretation, if S rdfs-entails E then it rdf-entails E;

and it should say:

Since every rdfs-interpretation is an rdf-interpretation, if S rdf-entails E then it rdfs-entails E;

See error report

[n-triple-grammar-ambiguity]

The N-Triples Grammar is Ambiguous

According to the N-Triples grammar, the following is a valid instance of the line production in an N-Triples document:

<p:> <> <q:> <> <r:> <> "s" .

But which part of the line matches the subject production, and which part matches the predicate production? See the error submission for further details.

The references to cwm, n-triples2kif.pl, Euler, and RDF Issue Tracking are currently listed as normative references. They should not (they are not recommendations or equivalent.

See error report.