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

RE: Change in definition of RDF literals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:26:51 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90E5F@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <duerst@w3.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 26 May, 2003 22:29
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); duerst@w3.org; jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Change in definition of RDF literals
> 
> 
> At 12:19 26/05/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > > >And for round tripping, we'd need the good old form
> > > >
> > > >     <Subj> <foo> XML"<span xml:lang='en'>blargh</span>" .
> > >
> > > I don't see that.
> >
> >How would you not need a distinct "flag" in the graph?
> >
> >If both of the following serialization forms result in the
> >same triple, you've lost the information necessary to
> >output the triple in RDF/XML using the same serialization
> >form.
> 
> Ah, but that particular flavour of round-tripping was already lost...
> 
> How does one roun-trip via the abstract graph and back to each of the 
> following:
> 
> <rdf:Description about="http://foo.com/myname"
>          xmlns:foo="http://foo.com/"
>          xmlns:rdf=...>
>     <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://foo.com/mytype">
>     <foo:prop>bar</foo:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> and
> 
> <foo:mytype about="http://foo.com/myname"
>          xmlns:foo="http://foo.com/"
>          xmlns:rdf=...>
>     <foo:prop>bar</foo:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> and
> 
> <foo:mytype about="http://foo.com/myname"
>          xmlns:foo="http://foo.com/"
>          xmlns:rdf=...
>       foo:prop="bar"/>
> 
> etc.
> 
> ...
> 
> I grant the case in point runs a little deeper, because in 
> the current spec 
> there is a distinction between XML literals and plain text 
> literals *in the 
> abstract syntax*.  I understood Martin to suggest that this 
> distinction is 
> un-needed -- if one accepts this premise, why is round-tripping of 
> particular syntactic forms of any importance?

It comes down to integration of RDF tools with XML tools. Round
tripping makes life alot easier.

I would argue that if round-tripping of XML literals is not
important, then neither are XML literals, and we can simply
have plain literals and applications must employ the necessary
escaping/quoting mechanisms for all literals when producing
RDF/XML.

Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 05:26:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:34 EDT