> > OK, so my reading of rdf:text was not mistaken then. > > > > Yes, I was very surprised when I read the rdf:text draft that this > > wasn't actually what was done, I just sort of assumed it was, since > it > > seems rather sensible, allowing RIF and OWL2 to be used better over > > RDF data. > > I haven't really been able to follow what you've been saying, but, yes, > of course RIF and OWL2 can (in all designs considerd) be used over RDF > data with plain literals (and the plain literals are interpreted as > rdf:text literals). If the specs were ambiguous about this, I'm sure > it's because it never occured to us that someone might imagine it > otherwise. > > -- Sandro A further issue is whether rdf:text can occur as a datatype in an RDF/XML document. If it can, then there is a further syntactic form semantically equivalent to a plain literal. If rdf:text is explicitly prohibited from being in an RDF/XML document then it forces the users of rdf:text to be aware of the required serialization as a plain literal, and ensures backward compatibility JeremyReceived on Friday, 22 May 2009 02:06:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:12 UTC