Re: Typed literals text

I consider the XML Schema position to be far too extreme. Yes, some
writing systems may not be expressable as a plain Unicode string,
but many, of not most, are, and as you point out, there is no reason
why there could not exist a subtype of xsd:string which includes
a specialized lexical grammar to provide for such writing systems.
In fact, I would argue that an XML literal, in RDF at least, is
really a subtype of xsd:string, with a lexical grammer that reflects
lexical forms of XML infosets.

IMO, XML Schema got it wrong. 

There's no reason why RDF should repeat that error.

And this is one good reason why RDF datatyping should be framework
neutral, so that we are free to address such requirements as language
qualification of typed literals while still supporting other standards
such as XML Schema.

Patrick

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 16 October, 2002 15:36
Subject: Re: Typed literals text


> 
> 
> Patrick:
> > I'm not sure why my earlier examples have not
> > proven to be compelling that this is necessary. But datatyping
> > and language are disjunct qualifications. E.g.
> 
> >   xsd:Name"Finland"-en
> >   xsd:Name"Suomi"-fi
> 
> this is not compelling because it is non-standard.
> XSD says:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#string
> 
> [[[
> NOTE: Many human languages have writing systems that require child elements 
> for control of aspects such as bidirectional formating or ruby annotation 
> (see [Ruby] and Section 8.2.4 Overriding the bidirectional algorithm: the BDO 
> element of [HTML 4.01]). Thus, string, as a simple type that can contain only 
> characters but not child elements, is often not suitable for representing 
> text. In such situations, a complex type that allows mixed content should be 
> considered. For more information, see Section 5.5 Any Element, Any Attribute 
> of [XML Schema Language: Part 2 Primer]. 
> ]]]
> 
> If we are representing text then an XML Literal is appropriate.
> 
> Of course, in the other thread, this could be used as a further argument why 
> we may need non-XSD types.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 02:07:30 UTC