W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Test cases for parseType="Literal"

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:13:11 -0500
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E6CB74DA-BDF5-11D5-99A1-003065D5CE46@upclink.com>
> some approaches that have been suggested (that provide additional
> information e.g. xml:lang, and the parseType) are:


> 2. Literals are resources (same as #1?), e.g.:
>  <http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/property> 
> <data:text/xml;lang=en-US;well-formed XML> .

I think this should be called "Literals have URIs" as it is 
plainly clear that literals are resources.

> 4. Literals can be the subject of an triple (what would the N-Triples
>  for test002 be?)

This is true now to some extent since bNodes can be literals 
(since literals are resources) and bNodes can be the subject of 
a triple. But to simplify things we could just allow:

"foo" <...bar> <...baz> .

> Also, is there a requirement that the transformation from RDF/XML to
> N-Triples back to RDF/XML be lossless/round-tripable?

Surely, we've given up on that by now as plain things like:

<foo> <bar!*@&> <baz> .


<foo> <bar> _:a .
<baz> <bar> _:a .

aren't representable in RDF/XML but it seems silly to disallow 
them from RDF.

[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 23:13:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC