- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:09:01 +0100
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
>> Axel: Strings with @ signs in RDF - will this be OK in the proposed
>> format for such literals?
The original proposal was that the text type is a pair of lexical form
and language code. The XML syntax would use attributes for the language
code as normal. For the presentation syntax (but see below) I'd suggest
following N3/Turtle:
"string"@lang
which would correspond to the literal value ("string", lang)^^rif:text.
>> Jos: this is also a need to ask the XML schema group re such literal
>> handling
Exactly, and we should wait until we have their comments before
finalizing this part.
>> Chris: 4 syntaxes in use: presentation + XML, ASN and "formal"
I've been meaning to raise this. That does seem rather a lot.
The original argument for the presentation syntax was that it was needed
to enable the semantics to be clearly presented. The bulk of the
document now uses the formal syntax for this purpose.
Do we still need the presentation syntax as well?
Dave
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 09:09:15 UTC