W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [RDFa] rdf:XMLLiteral (was RE: Missing issue on the list: identification of RDFa content)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:51:47 +0100
Message-ID: <45D59AD3.4090104@w3.org>
To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org


Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> Ivan, All,
> 
> Indeed we did not resolve the XMLLiteral issue aka the default 
> data type issue), yet. 
> 
> The rather good news: There is an issue in Tracker, now [1].

Yes! That is exactly why I posted this mail: this issue (and the other I
referred to) should be in the tracker to warn us...

> The bad one: We still have to decide what we want/need ;)
> 

Minor issue:-)


> Current status:
> 
>  + We are talking about section '5.1.1.1 XML Literals' in [2]
>  + Mark has put together a comprehensive list of options we have [3]
> 
> Regarding this issue I have made the following observation
> that I'd like to discuss with you:
> 
> Referring to [4], the XML Content within an RDF Graph is 
> quite unambiguously defined. The definition says:
> 
> 'RDF provides for XML content as a possible literal value. 
>  This typically originates from the use of rdf:parseType="Literal" 
>  in the RDF/XML Syntax. Such content is indicated in an RDF graph
>  using a typed literal whose data type is a special built-in data type
>  rdf:XMLLiteral, defined as follows ...'
> 
> amongst other things, the definition contains
> 
> 'a lexical space that is the set of all strings which are 
>  well-balanced, self-contained XML content [5]'
> 
> Taking the following fragment as an example input
> 
> <div about="">
>  <h1 property="dc:title">
>   E = mc<sup>2</sup>: The Most Urgent Problem of Our Time
>  </h1>
> </div>
> 
> I would assert that this does not conform to the definition
> of a well-balanced, self-contained XML content as of [5] due
> to the fact that the content of the <div> does not start with
> an element.
> 

Actually, I was wondering about that myself, but the same reference[4]
also says:

"for which embedding between an arbitrary XML start tag and an end tag
yields a document conforming to XML Namespaces [XML-NS]"

which somehow means that the fragment you have there, *if* embedded in
some start and end tag, would yield a proper portion.

There is also a note that says:

"XML values can be thought of as the [XML-INFOSET] or the [XPATH]
nodeset corresponding to the lexical form, with an appropriate equality
function."

ie, it is a node set which, in this case, would include a text node, the
sup node (with one child being the '2') and another text node.

B.t.w.:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Syntax-XML-literals

includes an example which has the same characteristics: no 'top leve'
xml element.

Bottom line: I do not think *that* is the problem.

Ivan


> Any thoughts?
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Michael
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0115.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#IDAK3Y5F
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Feb/0003.
> html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-content
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>  JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>  Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
> 
>  <office>
>     phone: +43-316-876-1193 (fax:-1191)   
>    e-mail: michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
>       web: http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ 
> 
>  <private>
>    mobile: +43-660-7621761
>       web: http://www.sw-app.org/ 
> ----------------------
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:51 PM
>>To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
>>Subject: Missing issue on the list: identification of RDFa content
>>
>>Looking at the RDFa issues' list I realized that an issue I raised a
>>long time on the identification of RDFa content[2] is not on the list.
>>As far as I can see, this thread ended with a mail of Mark[3] but I do
>>not think it should be considered as closed...
>>
>>The same holds for the datatype of literals. Wing has re-started the
>>thread in [4], we had some discussion in the resulting thread, but it
>>isn't recorded on [1] either...
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Ivan
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/2
>>[2] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Oct/0067
>>[3] 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Dec/0022
>>[4]
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007
> 
> Feb/0000.html
> 
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
>>FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 11:52:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:03 GMT