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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:18:41 +0200
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> Just to clarify:  the "model" I'm referring to is that software that
> purports to support a given datatype is responsible for being able to
> determine the validity of lexical forms for the datatype and, given a
> lexical form, determine the proper value according to that datatype (at
> least, that's what I understand the "model" to be).  What I'm suggesting
> breaks the model in the case of rdf:XMLLiteral isn't that RDF parsers
> would "pay it special attention" (the "model" *requires* that it be paid
> special attention), it's that it would be *optional*.  In other words,
> if RDF software works for "its" datatype (rdf:XMLLiteral) the way I
> understand other software is supposed to work for "their" datatypes, RDF
> software ought to check the validity of lexical forms for rdf:XMLLiteral.
> Conversely, would we consider it legitimate according to our model for
> RDF datatypes if software that purported to support xsd:integer got the
> typed literal "pumpkin"^^xsd:integer for John Smith's age (to quote an
> example from the Primer) and failed to complain (or even check)?

I think that's a good point - I'll try and ensure that Jena does check ...

I don't think we need particularly to add test cases, but we might want to
note it in an implementation report.

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 09:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:07 UTC