W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2001

Re: a new way of thinking about RDF and RDF Schema

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:45:13 -0400
To: tpassin@home.com
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011022064513H.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>
Subject: Re: a new way of thinking about RDF and RDF Schema
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:03:47 -0400

[...]

> Not so.  The M&S says
> 
> "The value 'Literal' specifies that the element content is to be treated as
> an RDF/XML literal; that is, the content must not be interpreted by an RDF
> processor."
> 
> It's the RDF processor that is not supposed to try to interpret the value,
> not the XML processor.  The XML syntax for RDF must of necessity comply with
> XML 1.0.  It's no problem for an XML processor to grab the value - for
> example, you could to it with xslt, using xsl:copy-of.  Of course, you may
> not get the exact same character string as you started with, but the XML
> will be equivalent for XML purposes.

Well I guess I've been completely confused as to what literals and
parseType="literal" are supposed to be.

However, if RDF processing can happen after XML parsing, what is the big
discussion on literals that has been going on in the RDF Core WG?  I would
think that XML parsing would result in a string that is the RDF literal, or
in a structure that is the parseType="literal", and that that 51 paragraph
document could be reduced to ``Take the result after XML processing''.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 06:46:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT