- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:47:37 +0000
- To: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
- Cc: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Elias Torres wrote: > Mark Birbeck wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> anything, can you comment on whether the problem you foresee would be >> addressed by modifying the parsing model so that either a typed >> literal or a plain literal is created, depending on whether the >> element being parsed has element children or not? >> > > I think we almost missed this in the thread and I wanted to make sure we > give it proper attention. On our RDFa TF call, we discussed with Mark > the XMLLiteral issue and (hopefully I'm not misquoting him) he thinks > that we do have a problem with our current default to XMLLiteral because > we lose our language information. This in fact is a consequence for the > lack of ability in RDF concepts to add language to datatyped literals, > but, nonetheless, we have to deal with it. > > Mark proposes something that was thought sometime ago by him and Steven > that in order for us not to lose mark-up, we change the spec so that > parsers can make the decision based on the element's children whether > it's a plain literal or an XMLLiteral. > > I like the scenario because it's a double-win. Neither plain literals or > XMLLiterals have to add a datatype property. It's stated by the author > simply by the fact whether she used mark-up or not in the element's content. > > I also brought up the point about plain ol' HTML. HTML mark-up content > is not XMLLiteral so I think that's this conditional rule could be of > benefit in allowing documents to switch formats and later on adding a > rule that in HTML there be some sort of HTMLLiteral. > > What does everyone think? Any major issues with the approach? We don't > want to decide on the issue until we have input from the community, so > please let us know. I have to say I'm skeptical, if the design is what I think it is. A single coherent off-Web dataset might contain names with markup in, eg. foaf:name of "Dan <foo>br</foo>rickley", or without. If published in RDFa, ...and the above rules are followed, some but not all of the literals become plain, others become datatyped. Amongst other things, the lang-tag handling of these two idioms is radically different. I'm not sure it's healthy to fragment data this way, based on its incidental internal characteristics. Sorry, I have to run for a plane, this isn't a very well articulated concern, I'll try to come up with something more precise. Dan > -Elias >
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 15:47:48 UTC