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

RE: Text for FAQ re rdf:datatype="&rdfs;#XMLLiteral"

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:18:29 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B026301AC@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Frank Manola [mailto:fmanola@mitre.org]
> Sent: 11 August, 2003 15:32
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Text for FAQ re rdf:datatype="&rdfs;#XMLLiteral"
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
> > Question:
> > 
> > Can I specify rdfs:XMLLiteral as the value of rdf:datatype?
> 
> 
> I believe it's rdf:XMLLiteral, rather than rdfs:XMLLiteral 
> (if not, both 
> Primer and Concepts need to be revised, among other documents).

Err... That's right. We changed it.

s/rdfs/rdf/

> > Answer:
> > 
> > Yes. Though it should be done with caution, particularly if
> > writing RDF/XML by hand, to ensure that the specified lexical
> > form is fully valid, as RDF parsers are not required to
> > check explicitly specified lexical forms.
> > 
> 
> 
> Patrick--
> 
> Could you clarify "as RDF parsers are not required to check 
> explicitly 
> specified lexical forms"?  Our general pitch on datatypes is that the 
> proper lexical forms for a datatype are defined by the datatype.  So 
> while RDF can't determine whether a datatype URIref actually 
> refers to a 
> datatype, and can't determine whether a lexical form is valid with 
> respect to a particular datatype, software designed to process that 
> particular datatype can (and presumably must).  In the case of 
> rdf:XMLLiteral, the datatype in question is defined as part 
> of RDF, and 
> if we follow the same general model as for other datatypes, 
> it seems to 
> me that RDF software must be capable of both determining whether the 
> datatype URIref rdf:XMLLiteral actually refers to a datatype 
> (it does), 
> and determine whether a lexical form is valid with respect to that 
> datatype (that is, assuming we allow explicitly writing an 
> rdf:XMLLiteral value as a typed literal, rather than using the 
> parseType).  If we're making an exception in the case of 
> rdf:XMLLiteral, 
> then it seems to me that the next FAQ needs to be "why" (I'm 
> not saying 
> there may not be good reasons, but this seems to break the 
> general model)?

Perhaps it remains an open question whether we require RDF
parsers to check the validity of lexical forms explicitly
specified with rdf:datatype="&rdf;XMLLiteral". I (perhaps
mistakenly) thought we didn't want to impose such a requirement
on RDF parsers. Perhaps we do.

Patrick
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 08:18:33 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:36 EDT