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

Re: question about XML markup in literals

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:17:37 +0100
Message-ID: <3EE78051.5030201@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>


This is OK, but might not be what you want.
e.g. normal XML rules would suggest that in addition

<xmlnum

 >one</xmlnum>  --> 1

(Whitespace differs).

This could be thrown in the lexical-to-value mapping, but we do not have an 
  extensible mechanism for rdf:XMLLiteral.
There might be a postponed issue; and one could experiment with

   <rdf:Description>
     <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&eg;mynum" rdf:parseType="Literal">
        <xmlnum
        >one</xmlnum>
     </eg:prop>
   </rdf:Description>

but to do so would not conform with the WDs.

Jeremy


pat hayes wrote:

> 
> Is it legal to include XML markup inside non-XMLLiteral literal strings? 
> For example, suppose I wanted to define a datatype called ex:XMLnumber 
> whose lexical space was all strings of the form
> 
> <xmlnum>English-number-phrase</xmlnum>
> 
> and whose L2V mapping looked like
> 
> <xmlnum>one</xmlnum>  --> 1
> <xmlnum>two</xmlnum>  --> 2
> ...
> <xmlnum>three hundred and ninety seven</xmlnum>  --> 397
> ....
> 
> and write literals like
> 
> "<xmlnum>three hundred and ninety seven</xmlnum>"^^ex:XMLnumber
> 
> to refer to 397, would that be legal RDF? There are no semantic reasons 
> to exclude it.
> 
> Pat
> 
> PS> This information has been requested by Roland and I don't know the 
> answer.
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 15:18:25 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:55 EDT