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

RE: [Fwd: Re: Summary of strings, markup, and language tagging in RDF (resend)]

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:34:42 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B0263015C@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 07 July, 2003 00:04
> To: Brian McBride
> Cc: rdf core; duerst@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Summary of strings, markup, and 
> language tagging
> in RDF (resend)]
> 
> ...
> > building an XML specific mechanism into its core model is 
> architecturaly
> > inappropriate - it mixes things that should be independent. 
>  Accepting
> > this implies that parseType="Literal" values must use one of the
> > existing mechanisms - i.e. either plain literals or typed 
> literals, or a
> > new more general mechanism must be invented, e.g. a new triple
> > structure.  An XML specific mechanism is undesirable.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 4. Taking the datatype approach creates the opportunity to 
> subclass the
> > datatype XMLLiteral, so that the value of a property may be 
> restricted
> > to a specific form of XML Literal, possibly specified using 
> XML Schema.
> 
> 
> This would be a future extension ... could I suggest adding the word 
> 'future' into this point, on its next iteration.

I think 'future application' would be better, since it would
not require any actual extension to RDF, either syntax or
semantics.

The present specification of RDF datatyping appears to completely
support such usage as equally well as for simple types.

Sorry if I seem to be splitting hairs here...

Patrick
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 04:34:44 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:43 EDT