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

Re: 'Peter proposal' on typed literals

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:51:58 +0100
To: "Patrick.Stickler" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <11076.1049453518@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>"Patrick.Stickler" said:
> 
> To clarify, I am proposing that
> 
>    <rdf:Description rdf:ID="foo" xml:lang="en">
>       <some:property rdf:parseType="Literal">
>          <h1>Blargh</h1>
>       <some:property>
>    </rdf:Description>
> 
> would result in the triple
> 
>    #foo some:property XML"<h1>Blargh</h1>"@en .

This is reversing a previous decision on XML literals being made into
typed literals with the rdf:XMLLiteral URI as the datatype URI.

Please can you explain the new information that was brought up
and the reason for this particular solution.


> Where the interpretation of such XML literals would be akin
> to that of M&S along with the new considerations of canonicalization,
> and such.

I wouldn't cite M&S as particularly specific on this point.  We
discussed this many times before and parseType="Literal" was too
vague in M&S.


> Thus parseType="Literal" would not result in a typed literal of
> any kind, and the datatype rdfs:XMLLiteral would be removed
> from all RDF specs.

OK, I'm clear on what you want to do.  I want to know why.



> As a second part of this proposal, lang tags would simply be
> ignored for typed literals and removed from the graph syntax
> for typed literals entirely. Thus
> 
>    <rdf:Description rdf:ID="foo" xml:lang="en">
>       <some:property rdf:datatype="&xsd;int">10<some:property>
>    </rdf:Description>
> 
> would result in the triple
> 
>    #foo some:property "10"^^xsd:int .
> 
> and not
> 
>    #foo some:property "10"@en^^xsd:int .
> 
> --
> 
> I guess these really constitute two proposals, but the first enables
> the second, and both address last call comments.

Yes and on this second proposal, please explain what new information
means this change is required.  Which specific last call comments
(URIs please) does it/they address?


Both of these will cause significant implementation
rewritings/reversions - and I *do* know this since I recall changing
it last time.  Plus there is also having to update/revert and check
several test cases and WD text changes.

Dave
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 05:52:53 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:52 EDT