- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:18:45 -0400
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:32 03/07/07 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > 3. For the common use case, where applications embed a > > literal in an XML > > document, it is preferable to distinguish,in the graph, between plain > > and XML literals, so that e.g. different escaping conventions can be > > applied. > >By this, do you mean, that the reason why we have special >treatment of XML literals at all, in addition to fully generic >support for plain and typed literals, is simply because RDF >uses XML for its serialization. No. It is because W3C (and many others) use XML for text-with-markup. If there were no need for text-with-markup, RDF would not have parseType="Literal", even though M&S was much more based on XML than the current spec. Regards, Martin. >If RDF used some other serialization >as standard, such as N3, then the need for the special datatype >would not exist (insofar as the need for the RDF specs to define >it)? > >If so, I agree. > >Thus, XML literals are not singled out because XML is by itself >more special than some other lexicalization, but because it >simply intersects with RDF's own serialization and it's very >useful to keep track of that in a standardized manner. > >-- > >I couldn't think of anything else you didn't cover. > >Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 18:19:14 UTC