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

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

From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:09:57 -0400
Message-ID: <45FDFF05.8050704@torrez.us>
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
CC: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org



Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Elias,
> 
>> Let me try a logical benefit in my opinion of defaulting to plain
>> literals. Let's do a survey of *all* of the ontologies and RDF schemas
>> we can possibly find and let's see how many rdf:XMLLiteral datatypes are
>> found in them. If XMLLiterals win, then I think that should be the
>> default, else plain literals should be. Is this logical?
> 
> I didn't ask for benefits...I specifically asked for a logical
> justification. My rationale is 'logical' because I have said 'given
> that we are processing an XHTML document, we are therefore dealing
> with XML literals BY DEFINITION'. What is the equivalent logical
> argument that says that not only is this view wrong, but also that we
> are actually dealing with plain literals? Don't get me wrong, I'll be
> quite happy if there is one...I've never minded being proved wrong!
> (I've had to get used to it over the years. :)) But so far, I'm not
> hearing an argument that keeps everything logical and consistent in
> both the XHTML and RDF camps.

I don't think I'm here to prove you wrong. I believe most of the
statements you refer to are both logical and correct. You have excellent
points but I think you are only looking at your facts only. I repeat
once again: we are not asking to remove such an ability, we are only
asking to choose a default that results in less typing most of the
times. This argument is about benefit not about who has the most logical
statements or not. The community subscribed to our mailing list is
asking for it to be plain literals: Ivan, Ian and me so far. Is a plain
literal default right or wrong? I'd say it depends on your perspective
and assumptions. This is an open and issue and we need to address it.

-Elias
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 03:10:00 GMT

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