- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:56:42 +0100
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <32526.994877802@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Aaron Swartz said: > On this issue I agree with Dan Connolly that an RDF literal with > XML content parses to the RDF representation of the XML infoset > for that literal. > > For more details, see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0061.html > > I'd settle for it parsing to the canonical XML for the literal, > but I think this is easier and more useful. So teasing this out a bit, I've attached some RDF/XML examples that generate one statement with a literal value - but are they the same literal? [This mostly orthogonal to the xml:lang thing, or at least, lets consider it so for this experiment.] Try thinking about these questions for the attached examples: What is the first item in the literal - a '<' character or an XML element called el? [Question after #rdfig IRC chat from Dan Connolly] Can all the information in the literal be preserved in the RDF formal model, such that it can be reserialised to RDF/XML without information loss? Note for #3 and #4, from RDF M&S, any parseType not literal or resource is treated as literal. For blah-blah, think "daml:Collection" or "log:Quote" if you prefer examples of how this has been used. I've tried the examples with the online SiRPAC. Examples #1 and #2 give [http://example.org/]--http://example.org/property/bar-->"<el/>" #3 and #4 get turned into [http://example.org/]--http://example.org/property/bar-->"<el></el>" so looses the element-ness of the parseType literal. However, it might be rendering the XML to a string for display purposes. My answers? #1 is a sequence of Unicode characters OR a sequence of XML characters (elements are forbidden) I need to check XML / XML infoset for some appropriate term - CDATA? #3, #4 are pieces of well formed XML (elements are allowed) and cannot be distinguished - parseType has been lost. It is not an XML document, or an XML Fragment[1]; and there are more issues that could be pulled out with namespaces, entitiy declarations etc. #2 could be either, but more likely well formed XML and not an element Answering off-the-cuff! Needs more detailed analysis, hopefully the examples will help. Dave [1] XML Fragment Interchange, W3C Candidate Recommendation, 12 February 2001, http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-fragment
Attachments
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 14:56:48 UTC