- From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
- Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:57:24 -0400
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Dan, > > > So for me, the question remains, what do we *lose* on the RDF side, > given that on the XHTML side we *gain* the ability to mark-up text > without having to resort to using the datatype attribute and the RDF > namespace. I just want to make sure we remember that this is not about losing an ability but choosing the default. Your benefit is ability to mark-up *mark-up* not text (this would just be a plain literal) w/o adding a datatype attribute. My benefit is having the ability to mark-up text w/o adding a datatype attribute. Which one happens more often? Isn't this how defaults should be chosen? BTW, I also have a problem with @content. It violates DRY and I'm not sure why it couldn't be done with a meta element somewhere else, if the content cannot be parsed deterministically and we are not maintaining a relationship to the original user input in the model. -Elias > > Regards, > > Mark > > On 18/03/07, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: >> 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 02:57:38 UTC