- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:49:05 +0100
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, Steven Pemberton <steven@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Just on one of ralph's comments ... Ralph R. Swick wrote: > Section 4.4 Establishing the object: As noted in 5.1.2.1 there > is a third way to establish the object of a statement, namely > element content. I suggest noting that option in another subsection > of 4.4 for completeness. Then there is the question of whether it > should be valid to have both a content attribute and element > content. It would complicate the XML Schema to disallow both on > the same element but the simplest interpretation that occurs to > me is that there are two RDF statements with the same subject and > predicate for each of the (literal) objects. Not sure if this > is useful. > My reading was that if there wasn't a @content attribute then this is an XMLLiteral, possibly even the ""^^rdf:XMLLiteral empty one. i.e. the two cases are distinguished by the presence or not of the attribute. Related I thought the example: <meta about="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/" property="dc:title"> <link rel="dc:creator" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404" /> </meta> (note the @property was omitted as you noted) As generating two triples, one with the rdf:XMLLiteral object as in the paper, and then also the <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/> dc:creator <http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> . since nothing suggests that the <link> element gets used up by being in the XMLLiteral. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 14:49:30 UTC