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

Re: XMLLiteral belongs in RDF namespace, not RDFs

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:43:58 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b40b9f322015d0c@[]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: 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 
>The datatyping extension is both syntactic and semantic.  As a 
>syntactic extension, it naturally belongs with the core language

It needs to use rdfs:Datatype to signal a recognized dtype, that's 
essentially syntactic.

>.  But as a semantic extension, it fits more comfortably (IMO) with 
>the schema material.  Hmmm... I don't know what to suggest as a 

Wait.... .solution? What exactly is the problem here?

>  (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 

I don't follow you here. Did you mean to say in an 
RDFS-interpretation? Because that wouldnt really be accurate.

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

No deep reason. Its tricky to say much without mentioning 
rdfs:Dataype and rdfs:Literal , is all.

I think we discussed having rdf:Datatype and rejected it for some W3C 
procedural reason (??).


>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.
>Graham Klyne

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 15:43:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC