W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

RE: pfps-08 last call comment on typed literals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:57:53 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90C63@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


Brian,

Can we plan to include in that discussion my proposal to revert to 
M&S XML literals? 

Given the two options -- M&S XML literals and Peter's proposal -- M&S
literals seems the safer bet, since they are well understood and there
is substantial prior implementational experience with them, and also
reverting to M&S XML literals is more in sync with the charter, providing
a overall solution that is closer to the original definition of RDF.

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 04 April, 2003 09:32
> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org; bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: pfps-08 last call comment on typed literals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very nice idea.
> Brian can I have two minutes at the telecon to see what we do 
> about it 
> procedurally.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> > Subject: Re: pfps-08 last call comment on typed literals
> > Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:42:12 -0600
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > 
> >>>I think that the best way to go would be to remove rdf:XMLLiteral
> >>>entirely.  It is a bastard amalgam of syntax and semantics 
> that provides
> >>>far greater pain than benefit.
> >>>
> >>Yeh, well, the world isn't perfect. Whatareyagonnado?
> >>
> > 
> > Complain!  Maybe even object.
> > 
> > 
> >>>If, however, it is not possible to remove rdf:XMLLiteral, 
> then why not
> >>>separate its syntactic and semantic components?  Simply 
> make it be the case
> >>>that the processing of rdf:XMLLiteral in the RDF/XML does all the
> >>>non-standard stuff in the translation to triples (much 
> like rdf:nodeid
> >>>does).
> >>>
> >>We have done except for the lang tag business.
> >>
> > 
> > So finish the job!  :-)
> > 
> > 
> >>>  So the translation of
> >>>	<subject>
> >>>	  <predicate parsetype="rdf:XMLLiteral">
> >>>	    [some text]
> >>>	  </predicate>
> >>>	</subject>
> >>>into a triple would be something like
> >>>	subject predicate "[some other text]"^^rdf:XMLDocument .
> >>>where [some other text] included all the junk involved 
> with rdf:XMLLiteral,
> >>>including the language tag stuff.
> >>>
> >>Jeremy is the one to ask. Jeremy, can we do this?? Note that this 
> >>would then mean that we could GET RID OF LANG TAGS IN THE GRAPH 
> >>ALTOGETHER. Just thought I'd mention it in passing.
> >>
> >>Pat
> >>
> >>
> >>> This would allow rdf:XMLDocument to be a
> >>>standard datatype.  You could even use rdf:XMLLiteral instead of
> >>>rdf:XMLDocument if you really needed to, but I wouldn't 
> recommend it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Pat
> >>>>
> >>>peter
> >>>
> > 
> > peter
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 01:58:17 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:51 EDT