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

Re: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 29 Jul 2003 11:44:28 +0100
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, i18n <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1059475467.2140.6.camel@dhcp-91-3.hpl.hp.com>

On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:21, Dave Beckett wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003 10:45:35 +0100
> Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > <rdf:Description>
> >   <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><em></eg:prop>
> > </rdf:Description>
> 
> This isn't good XML, see below.

Oh bu**er!  There goes what was left of my credibility!

[...]

> 
> Note also that the canonical XML form of empty elements such as
> "<br/>" is "<br></br>"

I didn't know that.  Learned something.

> (see Element Nodes in
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#ProcessingModel
> )
> 
> (Also, unless there is a particular reason, maybe don't stick with
> HTML-evocative tags?)

That was deliberate, in that representing text is the I18N design
centre, but you are right, it shouldn't really matter.
> 
> Is this form teaching you too many things at once: ?

Seems like it :)

> 
>  Concrete Syntax                  | Abstract Syntax       | Denotation
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  <eg:prop>a</eg:prop>             | "a"                   | "a"
>  <eg:prop>&lt;ab&gt;</eg:prop>    | "<ab>"                | "<ab>"
>  <eg:prop pt="L"><ab/></eg:prop>  | "<ab></ab>^^rdf:XMLLiteral | C("<ab></ab>")
>  <eg:prop pt="L">&amp;</eg:prop>  | "&"^^rdf:XMLLiteral   | C("&")
> 
> I'm not sure whether I'm capturing what you say here, your version of
> the table sort of implies the the canonical XML form isn't in the
> lexical form of the XML literal in the abstract syntax (as written in N-Triples).

Right, that was another mistake :(

Thanks for fixing my mistakes.  Maybe I can take some consolation that
format works in that my mistakes were pretty obvious.  Then again, maybe
not.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 06:46:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:51 EDT