- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:13:11 -0500
- To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> some approaches that have been suggested (that provide additional > information e.g. xml:lang, and the parseType) are: [...] > 2. Literals are resources (same as #1?), e.g.: > > <http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/property> > <data:text/xml;lang=en-US;well-formed XML> . I think this should be called "Literals have URIs" as it is plainly clear that literals are resources. > 4. Literals can be the subject of an triple (what would the N-Triples > for test002 be?) This is true now to some extent since bNodes can be literals (since literals are resources) and bNodes can be the subject of a triple. But to simplify things we could just allow: "foo" <...bar> <...baz> . > Also, is there a requirement that the transformation from RDF/XML to > N-Triples back to RDF/XML be lossless/round-tripable? Surely, we've given up on that by now as plain things like: <foo> <bar!*@&> <baz> . and <foo> <bar> _:a . <baz> <bar> _:a . aren't representable in RDF/XML but it seems silly to disallow them from RDF. -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 23:13:18 UTC