Dan Brickley wrote: > > Please publish the draft so I can criticise it! > > I'm uncomfortable with literal value inspection as the notation for > indicating type. It makes round-tripping hard. I could have a load of > data, all of which in my source database used XMLLiteral as a type, even > if only some of the values (currently) had markup in them. I can > reasonably compose SPARQL queries that pull out these as XMLLiterals. If > I push that data out into RDFa, my literals will sometimes end up > XMLLiteral, and sometimes plain Literal, in the process perhaps > acquiring language tags from the HTML context. When parsed back into a > database, I'm left with significantly mangled data. > > > Dan, this was a long discussion, and fairly passionate one... the precise process we have now is at: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa/LiteralObject which reflects the consensus we reached after, as I said, long discussions. I think the only additional information missing from that figure is that @datatype="" yields a plain literal. I would be interested what would be your alternative... Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 16:04:53 UTC