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

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

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:21:37 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030714172022.026834a0@localhost>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>

Hello Patrick,

For some additional opinion on this issue, please see
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/22/RSS-Problems.

Regards,    Martin.

At 11:03 03/07/11 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:


>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
>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>
>Sent: 10 July, 2003 20:34
>Subject: Re: Proposal (re rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure)
>
>
> > 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.
>
>It does indeed simplify the view of literals having XML markup.
>
>The only issues that I have been able to think of are:
>
>1. At present, one knows that any lexical form of type rdf:XMLLiteral
>is a well formed XML fragment.
>
>2. If RDF systems wish to re-serialize literals using parseType="Literal"
>then each literal will need to be checked for well formedness.
>
>Essentially what this means is that there are no longer any "XML literals"
>per se, but only a means for serializing literals as XML, in the RDF/XML,
>and that distinction is lost in the graph.
>
> >From a modelling perspective, that actually feels right, since the graph
>is agnostic about the serialization used, there shouldn't necessarily be
>any special distinction between literals with XML markup and literals
>without XML markup in the graph, simply due to the fact that XML
>is used for the official serialization syntax of a graph.
>
>But I'm waiting anxiously to hear from the parser implementors.
>
> >From my position, as a consumer of RDF and RDF/XML, there
>are no significant concerns to this loss of distinction.
>
>Patrick
>
>
> > Meanwhile, I've been aware of the issue for over a year...
> > wow, more like two...
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
> >
> > 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 Monday, 14 July 2003 18:19:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:45 EDT