Response to TK3

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your feedback. See our answers inlined.

Thomas Krekeler wrote 2 November 2009:

>
> = 'type' attribute for 'Const' =
> The list in [1] contains
> - Const     (individual, function, or predicate symbol, with optional 'type'
> attribute)
> On the other hand the XSD schema ([2]) explicitly defines the 'type'
> attribute to be required.

You are right, the type information is mandatory for RIF constants. We have corrected that. Thank you for spotting the mistake.

> = Locator in an Import Directive =
> The XSD schema ([2]) element 'location' refers to 'LOCATOR' which contains a
> 'Const' element.
> Maybe the XSD schema is out dated since [3] says that a locator is not a
> (rif:iri) constant?

TBC

> = xml:lang =
> The definition of the 'Const' element in [2] refers to the 'xml:lang'
> attribute.
> Is this attribute for the reader's information only, or does it affect the
> back transformation from XML syntax to presentation syntax?
> If so, which of the following XML fragments are valid and what are their
> back transformations?
> <Const type="&rdf;PlainLiteral" xml:lang="en">abc</Const>
> <Const type="&rdf;PlainLiteral" xml:lang="en">abc@</Const>
> <Const type="&rdf;PlainLiteral" xml:lang="en">abc@de</Const>

TBC

> = xml:base =
> The xml:base specification ([4]) does not define on which URIs contained in
> an XML document the resolving mechanism against their base URIs applies.
> What about 
> * the 'type' attribute of 'Const',
> * the content of the 'location' element,
> * the content of the 'Const' element if its type is xsd:anyURI or rif:IRI?

TBC

> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-fld/#XML_for_the_RIF-FLD_Language
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-fld/#Baseline_Schema_Module
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-fld/#Well-formed_Terms_and_Formulas
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-rif-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

-The RIF WG