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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:26:27 -0500
Message-ID: <3BCC3583.4DEA98B1@w3.org>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> At 05:09 PM 10/15/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >>Jeremy Carroll said:
> >>
> >>>  I would not be opposed to deleting parseType="Literal"
> >>
> >>As I mentioned in the 2001-10-12 call, there are several uses
> >>that have been reported. I'll repeat those for the record.
> >
> >Just in general, there ought to be a way for someone to include arbitrary
> >markup inside a piece of RDF without breaking an  RDF processor. If
> >parseType="Literal" is the only way to do that, its better to keep it than
> >to toss it out. (Not that there might not be a better way, of course...:-)
> 
> An alternative might be to &-escape the pointy brackets in the literal
> string;  an XML processor would (should?)

yes, would.

> deliver them un-escaped as the
> actual literal string, I think.

It's not a very attractive alternative: you lose the benefit
of being able to check the content for well-formedness
along with the rest of the RDF. And the user/author has
to make up some other flag to show that it's not just
a string that happens to look like XML content, but
really is to be parsed as XML content.

I've heard enough from the users (PRISM, dublin core,
RSS) that it's clear we owe them a specification of how
parseType="Literal" works.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 09:26:30 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:03 EDT