W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: use cases for Literal? RSS? Dublin Core? PRISM? DAML? XAP?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:45:17 -0500
Message-ID: <3BC620FD.6EB9452C@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> I am increasingly convinced that infoset is an irrelevance to RDF/XML
> and we should only consider the XPath nodeset.

Officially, I find that regrettable... Infoset is due to become
The Officially Recommended data model for XML any day now...

Meanwhile, I think you've got a point. The XML DSig folks,
when shopping for a data model, picked XPath too. The XML Query
folks are closely collaborating with the XPath data model folks;
they maintain some level of compatibility with the infoset,
but only as an appendix.

> I would not be opposed to deleting parseType="Literal"

I'm leaning more and more toward postponing it. I really
would like to take the idea of an RDF schema for the XML
infoset, tweak it to be more like XPath, and use that
as the official model behind parseType="Literal".

I've done some noodling on a schema for modelling XML in RDF in...


I'd like to do more work on that, as par of our obligation to...

  "... provide an account of the relationships between the basic
  components of RDF (Model, Syntax, Schema) and the larger XML
  family of recommendations."
   -- W3C Semantic Web: RDF Core Working Group Charter
  Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:11:33 GMT

That and datatyping... but not until after we're done
with the RDF 1.0-clarification stuff.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 18:46:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:52 UTC