W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2003

RE: literals and XMLLiterals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:12:39 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B026302C0@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <garret@globalmentor.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Garret Wilson [mailto:garret@globalmentor.com]
> Sent: 07 September, 2003 01:04
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: literals and XMLLiterals
> 
> 
> 
> "RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax" states that there are only plain 
> literals and typed literals, with XMLLiteral being a 
> predefined type of 
> typed literal. Does this mean the following two assertions are 
> semantically equivalent?
> 
> <rdf:Description>
> 	<my:xml parseType="Literal">XML content</my:xml>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> <rdf:Description>
> 	<my:xml 
> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLi
> teral">XML 
> content</my:xml>
> </rdf:Description>

Yes, but only if the 'XML Content' in the latter case is canonicalized
in exactly the same way as the RDF parser will do so for the first
case. I.e., you can specify XML literals using rdf:datatype, but the
burden is on you to ensure that the lexical form is canonicalized
properly. If you use parseType="Literal", the RDF parser takes care
of that complexity for you.

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 03:16:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT