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

Re: Typed literals: current status

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:16:45 +0200
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDAEGNCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Jeremy:
> 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.e
Brian:
> There have been several suggestions along these lines.  I would expect
such
> a proposal to get support if it can be done quickly.

See also Patrick's table in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0232.html

Unless I hear arguments to the contrary (or even simply some opposition) I
will try writing some text along these lines tomorrow.

Possible problems I can identify (mainly for DaveB):

+ N-triples syntax - the following two triples are identifcal:

<a:a> <a:p> <rdf:ClassicLiteral>"foo" .
<a:a> <a:p> "foo" .

Since it is work to drop the latter, I would suggest that the former (to be
more precise with two reserved datatype URIs) is specifically prohibited
(somewhat ugly).

also get the surprising equivalence between RDF/XML docs

<rdf:Description>
  <rdf:value rdf:datatype="&rdf;Literal">foo</rdf:value>
</rdf:Description>

and

<rdf:Description>
  <rdf:value >foo</rdf:value>
</rdf:Description>

==

Another thing, which negatively impacts DaveB, is that it then becomes
clearer that some of the C14N stuff about XML Literals probably ends up in
the syntax doc. I could try and work out what.

===

Motivations are:
- uniform framework
- addresses TBL's desire that XML is not built-in at the lowest level to RDF
- provides argument why lang tags are part of literal
- gives an example of a non-XSD type system that Brian is prepared to
defend.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 09:17:42 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:28 EDT