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

Re: XMLLiteral belongs in RDF namespace, not RDFs

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:57:45 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021109104510.03c71410@127.0.0.1>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Oh dear, I haven't being paying attention properly.  Apologies.  Something 
was niggling me about this, but I now think I see what it was:

The datatyping extension is both syntactic and semantic.  As a syntactic 
extension, it naturally belongs with the core language.  But as a semantic 
extension, it fits more comfortably (IMO) with the schema 
material.  Hmmm... I don't know what to suggest as a solution.  (DanC's 
approach, which we turned down, starts to look more attractive.)

That's not helpful... thinks...  the only thing I can think of that seems 
reasonably coherent is to bring the datatype URI into the core (rdf:), even 
if it is "adding a new term that has a meaning".  It would not be the first 
such term in the core language;  e.g. we already rdf:type, which has some 
defined semantics in an RDF-interpretation.

Is there any reason why a datatyped-interpretation has also to be an 
RDFS-interpretation?

#g
--

At 05:53 PM 11/8/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:

> >>>Dan Connolly said:
> >
> > I see
> >   rdfs:XMLLiteral
> >
> > in
> > http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF%20Model%20Theory_Oct_draft.html
> >
> > That should be rdf:XMLLiteral, right Dave?
>
>No, we agreed rdfs:XMLLiteral
>
>I noted this danger earlier this week.
>
> > eek... it's there in the syntax editor's draft
> > too:
> >
> > If literal-language is the empty string then the value is the
> > concatenation of """ (1 double quote), the value of the literal-value
> > accessor and ""^^<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#XMLLiteral>" (1
> > double quote).
> >
> > -- http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/
>
>It is in the soon to published WD too.
>
> > Let's please be careful... there is no
> > dependency on RDFS from RDF.
>
>Since it is adding a new term that has a meaning (will get some
>description in an RDF schema document) rather than something for
>building the RDF/XML syntax, I thought our policy was to add stick
>them in RDFS namespace.
>
>
> > I thought we could get away with a combined
> > model theory spec, at least for a while.
> > But I think that time is ending.
> >
> > And I'm starting to wonder about the primer...
> > ah; the primer is cited non-normatively
> > from that syntax draft; as long as we
> > do that, it can have both RDF and RDFS.
>
>
>
>Dave

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 06:35:34 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:01 EDT