W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure, again [was: Outstanding Issues]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 13 Feb 2002 16:01:17 -0600
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1013637677.18789.25.camel@dirk>
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 15:20, Pat Hayes wrote:
[...]
> >rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure : A literal containing XML markup is 
> >not a simple string, but is an XML structure.
> >
> >This issue was put on hold pending the outcome of the datatypes 
> >discussion.  I suggest we are far enough along on datatypes to bring 
> >this one back.
> 
> Wow, I missed that one. If we said yes, that would have made XML 
> Dtyping a hell  of a lot easier! I thought that Dan C. was insistent 
> that literals had to be simple strings.

In the first 10 or 20 messages on the subject, I was
careful to distinguish parseType="Literal" literals
from the normal <prop>val</prop> RDF literals. I got
tired of doing it and dropped it.

RDF has two (or three?) sorts of literals:

	<dc:title>A Christmas Carol</dc:title>

which looks to me like a pretty plain string

	<dc:title parseType="Literal">A <em>very</em>
			Long Story</dc:title>

which I have suggested should be treated like
a programming-language literal, i.e. short-hand for

	<dc:title>
	  <InfoItemSequence>
	    <first><CharacterSequence>A </CharacterSequence>
	    ...
        </dc:title>

For details, see

parseType="Literal" as syntactic sugar for infoset description
(#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure)
From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2001
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0153.html

The third sort has a (non-trivial) xml:lang attribute on
it or one of its ancestors.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:01:56 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:10 EDT