- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:49:05 +0100
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, Steven Pemberton <steven@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Just on one of ralph's comments ...
Ralph R. Swick wrote:
> Section 4.4 Establishing the object: As noted in 5.1.2.1 there
> is a third way to establish the object of a statement, namely
> element content. I suggest noting that option in another subsection
> of 4.4 for completeness. Then there is the question of whether it
> should be valid to have both a content attribute and element
> content. It would complicate the XML Schema to disallow both on
> the same element but the simplest interpretation that occurs to
> me is that there are two RDF statements with the same subject and
> predicate for each of the (literal) objects. Not sure if this
> is useful.
>
My reading was that if there wasn't a @content attribute then this is an
XMLLiteral, possibly even the ""^^rdf:XMLLiteral empty one.
i.e. the two cases are distinguished by the presence or not of the
attribute.
Related I thought the example:
<meta about="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/" property="dc:title">
<link rel="dc:creator" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404" />
</meta>
(note the @property was omitted as you noted)
As generating two triples, one with the rdf:XMLLiteral object as in the
paper, and then also the
<http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/> dc:creator
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> .
since nothing suggests that the <link> element gets used up by being in
the XMLLiteral.
Jeremy
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 14:49:30 UTC