- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:58:59 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 08:32 AM 10/10/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Perhaps I overstated the case... the evidence gathered by Art[1]
>that RDF 1.0 tools are all over the board on literals puts
>very little weight on any argument of the form "RDF 1.0 implementors
>have understood the spec to say XYZ...".
>
>Meanwhile, I've gotten a clarification of how DAML+OIL treats
>literals, and I've seen claims that it's been implemented.
>
>So I think we're not very much constrained by history.
>In some ways, I lean toward saying we should strike
>parseType="Literal" and xml:lang from the RDF 1.0 spec
>on the basis that there's insufficient implementation experience,
>just like aboutEachPrefix, and come back to richer
>literals and datatypes in RDF 1.x.
>
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0095.html
>Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:29:11 -0400
Concerning xml:lang, I agree that would be cleaner.
Concerning parseType="Literal", I think there's still a difficulty:
<rdf:RDF ...>
<eg:Node>
<eg:literalProperty parseType="Literal">
<eg:NotANode>
<eg:notAProperty>some text</eg:notAProperty>
<eg:NotANode>
</eg:literalProperty>
</eg:Node>
</rdf:RDF
How would this be expressed in absence of parseType="Literal"?
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 12:25:48 UTC