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?


> = 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>


> = 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?


> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <> (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.


Last modified on 10 December 2009, at 00:26