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

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