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

Re: Typed literals: current status

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:08:43 +0300
Message-ID: <00a401c278d9$3dd74670$c99316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


[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: 18 October, 2002 23:02
Subject: Typed literals: current status


> 
> ... some datatype d ...
> 
> ... set D of datatypes ...
> 
> ... a datatype ...
>
> ... the datatype URI ...

Are we making it clear somewhere that 'datatype' (unless 
otherwise specified) refers to an instance of rdfs:Datatype?


> ...But 
> if we had two new types rdf:ClassicLiteral, rdf:ClassicXMLLiteral then we 
> could move all the complexity of XML Literals into a datatype definition.

This would prevent any future treatment of XML Literals as typed
literals.

After all, both complex and simple types are addressed by XML Schema,
and it seems intuitive and reasonable to me to simply treat XML Literals
as lexical forms of infosets (as outlined in Part 2 of the restructured
specification, http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html).

Having 

   XML"<h1>foo</h1>"<&rdf;ClassicXMLLiteral>

prevents us from (now or later) saying

   XML"<h1>foo</h1>"<&xhtml;h1>

which seems very consistent with typed literals as defined for
simple datatypes at present, and gives us a consistent treatment
for literals, where the alternation between non-XML and XML is
disjunct from the alternation between non-typed and typed. I.e.

                    Non-XML     |               XML
           ---------------------|-----------------------------------
Non-Typed  |      "10"-en       |      XML"<h1>foo</h1>"-en
-----------|--------------------|-----------------------------------
Typed      | "10"<&xsd;int>-en  |  XML"<h1>foo</h1>"<&xhtml;h1>-en
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Eh?

Patrick
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 04:10:55 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:27 EDT