Re: [RDFa] rdf:XMLLiteral (was RE: Missing issue on the list: identification of RDFa content)

Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> Ivan,
>  
> 
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Syntax-XML-literals <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Syntax-XML-literals> 
>>
>>includes an example which has the same characteristics: no 'top level' xml element.
> 
> 
> Without being disrespectful and assuming that you have your SW activity
> lead hat off :) 

Goes without saying! For this and all my discussions on the mailing list:-)

>                    I'd like to ask you to which example you are referring -
> the only one I can find in section 2.8 of [1] reads as follows:
>  
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>          xmlns:ex="http://example.org/stuff/1.0/">
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/item01">
>     <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal" xmlns:a="http://example.org/a#">
>       <a:Box required="true">
>         <a:widget size="10" />
>         <a:grommit id="23" />
>       </a:Box>
>     </ex:prop>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> with <a:Box ...> being the 'top level element' in the resulting object
> of type rdf:XMLLiteral, giving the triple [2]:
>  
> <http://example.org/item01> <http://example.org/stuff/1.0/prop> "<a:Box xmlns:a=\"http://example.org/a#\" required=\"true\">\n         <a:widget size=\"10\"></a:widget>\n         <a:grommit id=\"23\"></a:grommit></a:Box>\n    "^^<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> .
> 

Oops, you are right. This is not a good example.

However, the main comment of my previous mail holds, I think (and, as
Mark put it, the really important reference is the formal rdf spec and
not rdf/xml):

"XML values can be thought of as the [XML-INFOSET] or the [XPATH]
*nodeset* (my emphasis, IH) corresponding to the lexical form, with an
appropriate equality function."

Ie, it is a set of XML nodes.

Ivan


> which is what I would expect ...
>  
> The rational behind my original question was to figure out what subset 
> of RDF we are going to support. This was due to the fact that we have a
> pending action regarding this issue (cf. [3]).
> 
> 
>>Bottom line: I do not think *that* is the problem.
> 
> 
> Well - it is always either part of the problem or part of the solution ;)
> 
> Cheers,
>        Michael
>  
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/example09.nt
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/Overview.html#sec4
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>  JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>  Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
> ----------------------------------------------------------

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf