W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: RDF-ISSUE-177: XMLLiteral and HTML [RDF Concepts]

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 20:39:39 +0000
Message-ID: <52A62A8B.4050703@apache.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
+1 to the response.

Concepts ED says:

"""
     The rdf:HTML datatype may be made non-normative
     The rdf:XMLLiteral datatype may be made non-normative
"""
so that will need concluding soon.

	Andy

On 09/12/13 20:25, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> This look to me like an appropriate response. I suggest one of the
> Concepts editors send this response on behalf of the Working Group.
> Please add a thank-you and a request for response at the beginning resp.
> end of the message.
>
> Guus
>
>
> On 09-12-13 20:24, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Proposed answer:
>>
>> [[
>> The purpose of both datatypes is to enable text with markup in HTML
>> graphs. The XMLLiteral datatype was added to the original 2004 spec
>> due to i18n requirements (e.g., bidirectional text, mixed-language
>> text, and Ruby markup). This datatype is now widely deployed for a
>> number of use cases, and removing it is realistically no longer possible.
>>
>> Since XHTML has not seen the adoption that was expected back in the
>> days of the previous WG, the HTML datatype has now been added as a
>> more author-friendly alternative that addresses the same requirements.
>>
>> The only RDF-WG specification that requires an XML parser for a
>> conforming implementation is RDF/XML. There are no conformance
>> criteria on any of the other documents that require an XML parser or
>> HTML parser.
>>
>> Implementing, for example, graph equivalence over these datatypes
>> would require such a parser, but no entailment regime requires that
>> these datatypes be recognised. Simpler put, the datatypes are
>> optional. Implementations may elect to not support them, which means
>> they simply treat these datatypes like any other unrecognised
>> datatype: as strings that carry a marker for a certain syntax.
>>
>> Implementing XMLLiteral in RDF 1.1 is considerably easier than before
>> because the requirement for XML canonicalisation has been removed.
>>
>> The most natural way to associate HTML or XML resources with an RDF
>> graph is perhaps not what you propose, but something more like this:
>>
>>    <example.com/mydocument.xml> dc:format "text/xml".
>>
>> This has been possible since RDF 2004.
>> ]]
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 Dec 2013, at 18:50, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> RDF-ISSUE-177: XMLLiteral and HTML [RDF Concepts]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/177
>>>
>>> Raised by: Andy Seaborne
>>> On product: RDF Concepts
>>>
>>> Recorded :
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0005.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 20:40:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:36 UTC