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

Re: Proposal

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:43:17 -0400
Message-ID: <3F0DB3C5.5050707@mitre.org>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
CC: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, duerst@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

I have what I believe is a related question(s)...at least, it's related 
to the question of whether/how much RDF drops from the surrounding XML 
context "inside" the value of a parseType="Literal" attribute.  Section 
2.8 of Syntax (which covers parseType="Literal") has the example:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
          xmlns:ex="http://example.org/stuff/1.0/">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/item01">
     <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"
              xmlns:a="http://example.org/a#"><a:Box required="true">
         <a:widget size="10" />
         <a:grommit id="23" /></a:Box>
     </ex:prop>
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

The test cases show that the namespace information 
xmlns:a="http://example.org/a#" is effectively dropped (it appears 
nowhere in the triples).  The questions are:

1.  Is the namespace information for the a: prefix there simply so the 
parser doesn't complain ?.

2.  Is the following supposed to be equivalent to the above?

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
          xmlns:a="http://example.org/a#"
          xmlns:ex="http://example.org/stuff/1.0/">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/item01">
     <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><a:Box required="true">
         <a:widget size="10" />
         <a:grommit id="23" /></a:Box>
     </ex:prop>
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

3.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to point out somewhere that this 
namespace information doesn't get carried over into the RDF?  (One of 
the reasons I'm asking is that, if I'm going to wind up explaining 
rdf:parseType="Literal", I'm going to want to point this out).

--Frank

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.
snip


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 14:23:27 EDT

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