W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > April 2010

Re: rdf:XMLLiteral and the RDF namespace

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:58:02 -0400
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "Hondros, Constantine" <Constantine.Hondros@wolterskluwer.com>, "public-rdfa@w3.org" <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3A77ADD5-AAEF-47E8-85C3-F77D693413A9@w3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>

On Apr 28, 2010, at 18:10 , Mark Birbeck wrote:

> Yes, that's right.
> 
> But now that RDFa 1.1 has a more cohesive story about about CURIEs and
> tokens being applied consistently across all of our attributes, we
> should consider creating an 'xmlliteral' token to sit alongside
> 'next', 'prev', 'license', etc.
> 

But this is not only an rdf:XMLLiteral issue, is it? If the XHTML code contains an explicit @datatype="xsd:integer", this also requires the definition of the xsd prefix. Do you mean that we should define a term for all the XSD datatypes? There is quite a load of them, and there is a danger that those terms would clash with terms used elsewhere (remember that we do not have any association that says that a specific term can be used with a specific attribute only...)

We had some discussion about defining default prefixes. One possibility would be to say that prefixes for all standard W3C URIs vocabularies are automatically defined by default, ie, rdf, rdfs, skos, owl, xsd, powder (I may forget some). The inclusion of non-standard prefixes like foaf, dc, or cc, might be more touchy in terms of (social) process, but I do not see any issue with standard w3c vocabularies...

Ivan


> It would save a lot of hassle.
> 
> :)
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:07:40 +0200
>> "Hondros, Constantine" <Constantine.Hondros@wolterskluwer.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 1) the RDF prefix and namespace should be obligatory if the datatype
>>> rdf:XMLLiteral is used
>> 
>> Yes, this is the case. @datatype is a CURIE, so you must define the
>> CURIE prefix. The "rdf:" prefix is nothing special in this regard.
>> 
>> Test 0094 in the RDFa test suite is relevant here.
>> 
>> --
>> Toby A Inkster
>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 23:58:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:06 UTC