W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

Issues concerning parseType

From: Ken Baclawski <kenb@ccs.neu.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010801001934.6343A-100000@steam>
The RDF specification states: "The parseType attribute should have one of
the values 'Literal' or 'Resource'."  In addition, the formal grammar does
not allow for other values of this attribute. 

However, the spec contradicts this requirement by allowing a parseType
other than Resource or Literal, and specifying that in this case it should
interpret it as if it was Literal. 

These two specifications appear to conflict with one another.

This issue arose when I was puzzling over why SiRPAC was not giving me an
error message when I gave it the parseType "daml:collection".

I subsequently also wondered whether the "daml" prefix in this case
should be interpreted as a namespace or as simply part of a literal.  In
particular, if I happened to use "abc" as the namespace for the DAML
schema, then should I use parseType="abc:collection" or
parseType="daml:collection"?  In other words, how should namespace
specifications be interpreted in literals, such as attribute literals or
parseType literals?

Ken Baclawski
Ken@Baclawski.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:32:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:28 GMT