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 14:47:35 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90C72@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <GK@NineByNine.org>, <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>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@NineByNine.org]
> Sent: 04 April, 2003 13:53
> To: Jeremy Carroll; 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
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

I share Graham's view on this. If we keep XML literals as datatyped
literals, then let's remove lang tags entirely, which also alleviates
any need for <rdf:wrapper> elements.

I would not be favorable to actual <rdf:wrapper> elements in the
abstract graph.

Patrick

 
> #g
> --
> 
> 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.
> >
> >So:
> >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
> >discourse
> >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
> >identity.
> >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:RDF>
> >   <rdf:Description xml:lang="en">
> >     <rdfs:comment rdf:parseType="Literal"
> >     ><b>Bold</b></rdfs:comment>
> >   </rdf:Description>
> ></rdf:RDF>
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Jeremy
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 06:47:40 EST

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