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

RE: pfps-08 last call comment on typed literals

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:53:26 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I'm broadly supportive of this approach.

What I think may be controversial here is the explicit incorporation of 
<rdf-wrapper> into the abstract syntax.  It's purpose seems to be to 
capture the language information for this form of literal.  (I have some 
thoughts, but I think to raise them now would muddy the important debate.)

If we go this route, I would favour removing language tags from all typed 
literals in the abstract syntax.


At 11:31 04/04/2003 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > > So finish the job!  :-)
>I think I will try to echo what I hear Peter suggest, since Patrick seems to
>be (1) following this thread (2) of the opinion that there is not a proposal
>that changes rdf:XMLLiteral to be a normal rather than a special datatype.
>We have not been contemplating changing either:
>1) the rdf:parseType="Literal" syntax
>2) the representation of this, as a canonical XML doc, in the domain of
>We have  changed the treatment so that:
>   most of the syntactic transformation of from (1) to (2) is done in Syntax
>and not in rdf:XMLLiteral mapping rules.
>We could go the whole hog, and make the mapping rules of rdf:XMLLiteral the
>Leaving (2) fixed we have that the syntax document not only has to
>canonicalise the literal content, but also it converts it into an XML
>document as currently specified in concepts.
>This would change test cases: e.g.
>   <rdf:Description xml:lang="en">
>     <rdfs:comment rdf:parseType="Literal"
>     ><b>Bold</b></rdfs:comment>
>   </rdf:Description>
>would correspond to n-triples
>_:a rdfs:comment
>"<rdf-wrapper xml:lang=\"en\"><b>Bold</b></rdf-wrapper>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
>or something like that (I don't swear I've canonicalized correctly).
>Whether or not we include a redundant @en in the literal is immaterial.
>We may well then have
>rdf:XMLLiteral as a subdatatype of xsd:string
>i.e. it is completely well-behaved and may or may not have synonyms and we
>don't care, and language tags never participate in l2v mappings. We could
>even ditch them all together from typed literals.

Graham Klyne
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 06:10:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC