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

Re: Proposal

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:12:16 +0300
Message-ID: <003801c34784$2b779be0$810fa20a@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@w3.org>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>


These are all good questions Frank, and are valid regardless of whether
we stick with the present solution or go with the latest proposal.

They all have to do with how the XML fragment in the RDF/XML is
mapped to a string (either lexical form or plain literal) in the graph,
and that mapping will likely be the same no matter which solution is
chosen.

Patrick


----- Original Message -----
From: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@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>
Sent: 10 July, 2003 21:43
Subject: Re: Proposal


> 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 Friday, 11 July 2003 04:12:33 EDT

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