- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:45:17 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > I am increasingly convinced that infoset is an irrelevance to RDF/XML > and we should only consider the XPath nodeset. Officially, I find that regrettable... Infoset is due to become The Officially Recommended data model for XML any day now... Meanwhile, I think you've got a point. The XML DSig folks, when shopping for a data model, picked XPath too. The XML Query folks are closely collaborating with the XPath data model folks; they maintain some level of compatibility with the infoset, but only as an appendix. [...] > I would not be opposed to deleting parseType="Literal" I'm leaning more and more toward postponing it. I really would like to take the idea of an RDF schema for the XML infoset, tweak it to be more like XPath, and use that as the official model behind parseType="Literal". I've done some noodling on a schema for modelling XML in RDF in... http://www.w3.org/2001/03swell/xml.n3 I'd like to do more work on that, as par of our obligation to... "... provide an account of the relationships between the basic components of RDF (Model, Syntax, Schema) and the larger XML family of recommendations." -- W3C Semantic Web: RDF Core Working Group Charter http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:11:33 GMT That and datatyping... but not until after we're done with the RDF 1.0-clarification stuff. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 18:46:19 UTC