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: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:41:08 +0000
Message-ID: <640dd5060702161441s70a05170s6a697184825bbd4c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org

Michael,

Ivan is right that this really, really *isn't* part of the problem.
When RDF refers to 'XML', it means external general parsed entities.
Please look at this:

  <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-content>

You'll see that we're dealing with smaller sub-components than full
well-formed documents. If your view was correct then the comment in
'RDF concepts' about something potentially having a datatype of _both_
rdf:XMLLiteral *and* xsd:string would be non-sensical.

I tried to explain this in a great deal of detail in my previous
emails, and apologise if it wasn't clear, but I would appreciate it if
any disagreements or requests for clarity were focused on those
emails; at the moment my posts seem to be being 'referred to' without
actually being 'referred to'.

NOTE: I should just say that the key document for us is RDF concepts,
and *not* the syntax of RDF/XML.

Regards,

Mark


On 16/02/07, Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at> wrote:
>
> Ivan,
>
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Syntax-XML-literals <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 level' xml element.
>
> Without being disrespectful and assuming that you have your SW activity
> lead hat off :) I'd like to ask you to which example you are referring -
> the only one I can find in section 2.8 of [1] reads as follows:
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>          xmlns:ex="http://example.org/stuff/1.0/">
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/item01">
>     <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal" xmlns:a="http://example.org/a#">
>       <a:Box required="true">
>         <a:widget size="10" />
>         <a:grommit id="23" />
>       </a:Box>
>     </ex:prop>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
>
> with <a:Box ...> being the 'top level element' in the resulting object
> of type rdf:XMLLiteral, giving the triple [2]:
>
> <http://example.org/item01> <http://example.org/stuff/1.0/prop> "<a:Box xmlns:a=\"http://example.org/a#\" required=\"true\">\n         <a:widget size=\"10\"></a:widget>\n         <a:grommit id=\"23\"></a:grommit></a:Box>\n    "^^<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> .
>
> which is what I would expect ...
>
> The rational behind my original question was to figure out what subset
> of RDF we are going to support. This was due to the fact that we have a
> pending action regarding this issue (cf. [3]).
>
> > Bottom line: I do not think *that* is the problem.
>
> Well - it is always either part of the problem or part of the solution ;)
>
> Cheers,
>        Michael
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/example09.nt
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/Overview.html#sec4
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>  JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>  Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 22:41:24 GMT

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