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

Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:04:04 +0200
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8929BA4.E7DA%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

I just thought I'd try to summarize what I saw as the necessary
parser extensions required to support the datatyping idioms,
which would be necessary to always achieve the correct idiom
from the intuitive serializations mirroring rdf:value usage.

(of course, these aren't manditory, but I think reasonable and
 surely beneficial to users)

At present, given any of the following, all parsers (almost)
do "the right thing" and result in the required bNode idiom:

   <dc:date rdf:value="2002-02-14"/>

   <dc:date rdf:value="2002-02-14" rdf:dtype="&xsd;date"/>

   <dc:date rdf:parseType="Resource">
     <rdf:value>2002-02-14</rdf:value>
     <rdf:dtype rdf:resource="&xsd;date"/>
   </dc:date>

   <dc:date>
     <rdf:Description>
       <rdf:value>2002-02-14</rdf:value>
       <rdf:dtype rdf:resource="&xsd;date"/>
     </rdf:Description>
   </dc:date>

(I'm leaving the datatype idiom out of this, since it
can't be treated in any generic fashion by the parser)

Where parsers don't do the right thing, is in the second
example with the rdf:dtype attribute, which results in
the xsd:date URI being a literal rather than a resource,
so parsers would have to be updated to recognize rdf:dtype
and give it special interpretation as being similar to
rdf:resource.

If we use rdf:lform rather than rdf:value, then we would
have to also give rdf:lform the same treatment as rdf:value
now recieves.

I think that's all that would be required, and it seems
to be pretty straightforward, even trivial.

Comments from the parser implementors?

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 04:02:40 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:12 EDT