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

Re: Proposal (re rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 10 Jul 2003 12:34:31 -0500
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <1057858470.16158.446.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 10:02, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> OK folks,
> In the interests of satisfying all interested parties,
> I offer the following proposal for an alternative
> solution to the present one, based on nothing new,
> just a partial roll back to a more traditional M&S
> treatment of XML literals.
> Changes:
[...most of this looks clear and straightforward...]
> --
> All of the following:
> 4. <rdf:Description rdf:about="#x">
>       <ex:foo rdf:parseType="Literal"><xhtml:b>bar</xhtml:b></ex:foo>
>    </rdf:Description>
> 5. <rdf:Description rdf:about="#x">
>       <ex:foo>&lt;xhtml:b&gt;bar&lt;/xhtml:b&gt;</ex:foo>
>    </rdf:Description>
> 6. <rdf:Description rdf:about="#x" ex:foo="&lt;xhtml:b&gt;bar&lt;/xhtml:b&gt;"/>
> generate the same triple:
>    <#x> ex:foo "<xhtml:b>bar</xhtml:b>"@fi .

I'm uncomfortable with that... my strong intuition is that this
loss of information is going to hurt.

Meanwhile, I've been aware of the issue for over a year...
wow, more like two...

and I haven't developed any particular implementation experience
that validates my intuition. cwm doesn't really grok
parseType="Literal" at all, and it would probably be easier
to support this interpretation of it. So I'm not in a position
to object.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 13:47:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:44 EDT