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

Re: rdfs:XMLLiteral related syntax changes

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:06:32 +0000
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <31797.1035893192@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Patrick Stickler said:
> 	Likewise,   the following two are synonymous
> 
> 	 <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><a>blah</a></foo:prop>
> 	 <ex:prop rdf:datatype="&rdfs;XMLLiteral"
>  	                   rdf:parseType="Literal"><a>blah</a></foo:prop>

Er, no.  The latter is illegal syntax.

The only place the rdf:datatype attribute is allowed is on a
(non-empty) literal property element:

http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#literalPropertyElt

> 	The parse type and datatype are not the same, though if not
> 	otherwise specified, an XML literal "defaults" to rdfs:XMLLiteral,
> 	so in the second case above the rdf:datatype attribute is
> 	redundant and unnecessary.
>  
> 	Yet, per Jonathan's inquiry, we could/should support the
> 	arbitrary typing of XML literals by complex types. E.g.
> 
> 	<ex:prop rdf:datatype="&xhtml;title"
>  	                   rdf:parseType="Literal"><title>blah</title></foo:prop>
> 
> 	or, alternately, and synonymously
> 
> 	<ex:prop rdf:datatype="&xhtml;title">&lt;title&gt;blah&lt;/title&gt;</foo:prop>

I think I addressed this in earlier messages:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0447.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0448.html

as far as I understand it, we're not giving XML literals
(parseType="Literal") an additional datatype URI, the datatype URI is
fixed to the URI of rdfs:XMLLiteral

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 07:06:42 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:33 EDT