- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:05:34 +0000
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- Cc: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>, Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Mark Birbeck wrote: > > Hi Elias/Ian, > > I'm afraid I'm missing from this discussion, first what we *lose* by > using rdf:XMLLiteral, and second, some clear-cut explanation of why > plain literals are *logically* the correct default, rather than just > simply someone's 'preference'. One brief but hopefully simple point: if RDFa generates literals that are typed XMLLiteral, ... RDFa document authors need to choose RDF vocabularies whose properties have that has a range. Actually I'm not sure. They certainly need to consider the range. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_xmlliteral "The class rdf:XMLLiteral is the class of XML literal values. rdf:XMLLiteral is an instance of rdfs:Datatype and a subclass of rdfs:Literal." If we define a property to have a range rdfs:Literal, and it is generally used with plain literals... does anything get tricky if we start using it with rdf:XMLLiteral? I have to admit, to date, I had assumed without scrutiny that this was problematic. I guess I had been confusing the superclass rdfs:Literal with the notion of a "plain Literal", http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-plain-literal ... but it seems (unless I'm missing something; sorry I forget the design discussions! it was a while back now...) ...seems that we don't define a class for plain literals. So, for example, we say foaf:name has a range http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal I had previously thought this made use of XMLLiteral in names problematic, eg. for ruby markup in names. But perhaps not. A question (for the OWL folk here): if we have a property sometimes taking plain literals as values, and sometimes taking XMLLiteral, ... does this put the property (and hence vocab) into OWL Full? cheers, Dan
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 00:05:42 UTC