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

[collections] Re: Web Ontology Working Group Consensus Review of RDF Core documents

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:57:13 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030221135407.00a698e0@127.0.0.1>
To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

While I recognize that there are significant technical difficulties to 
allowing literals in list-collections, I also have considerable sympathy 
with the view expressed here.  In my own work with RDF, using Notation3 
rather than the XML syntax, I have found lists containing literals to be a 
useful feature.

#g
--

At 05:17 PM 2/20/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--------------
>WOWG comments on RDF language decisions
>--------------
>
>i. Design of rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:parseType="Literal":
>
>The full integration of this feature of RDF into OWL necessitates that the
>denotation in the domain of discourse be fully defined by the source RDF/XML
>file. We therefore request that you remove sufficient implementation 
>variability to ensure that this is the case.  An example fix would be to 
>require an RDF/XML parser to use a specific canonicalization on input.
>
>ii.Constraints on rdf:parsetype="Collection"
>
>We would prefer that rdf:parsetype="Collection" would be allowed to be a 
>list of datatype literals, not just a list of RDF node elements. This, 
>would permit some constructs in OWL that are difficult under the current 
>design.

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 13:06:29 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:51 EDT