- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:02:13 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: 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.
For uniformity of the syntax, it is better to use "string@lang"^^...
where @ is special (i.e., needs to be escaped, if one wants to include it
in the string. By the way, why can't we use xsd:string data type for these?
> >> 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?
The presentation syntax is basically the same as the formal syntax. We just
give a BNF for it.
--michael
> Dave
> --
> Hewlett-Packard Limited
> Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
> Registered No: 690597 England
>
>
Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 22:02:23 UTC