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

RE: use cases for Literal? RSS? Dublin Core? PRISM? DAML? XAP?

From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:53:33 -0700
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Eric Miller" <em@w3.org>, "arno@Adobe. COM" <arno@Adobe.COM>, "Misha Wolf" <misha.wolf@reuters.com>
Message-ID: <EMEKICCGFEKJFGKMFLEPMEEBDMAA.rdaniel@interwoven.com>
Jeremy Carroll said:

> I would not be opposed to deleting parseType="Literal"

As I mentioned in the 2001-10-12 call, there are several uses
that have been reported. I'll repeat those for the record.

As far as PRISM is concerned, here's a real example taken from
a list of about 1k articles, about 20 of which had this kind of markup.

<dc:title rdf:parseType="Literal"><i>CRN</i> Interview: Ellen Hancock, Exodus Communications</dc:title>

All of the titles for articles that are interviews had the abbreviation
for the magazine name in italics. That happens to be the editorial style
of that publisher. If we don't have rdf:parseType="Literal", this will be
illegal RDF and they won't be able to do what they want. That will not
help the adoption of RDF in commercial situations.

Second, in Interwoven's DTD for 'controlled vocabularies' there is an
element called 'definition'. It is important that we be able to
put basic markup, like paragraph breaks, into definitions. Titles also
have a need for markup on some occasions. This point was made by both
Eric Miller and myself at the Sebastopol F2F.

Third, any proposal to delete parseType="Literal" should be run
past the I18N working group. At the last call stage of RDF M&S,
concerns from the members of that community basically forced
RDF to make SOME provision for embedded XML so that I18N concerns like
BiDi and Ruby could be accomodated.

> In my previous ramblings on the topic, which I still owe the WG a second
> attempt at, I have suggested that: 
> 1) any reasonable attempt at representing an XML Literal should be
> permissable.

That is a little loose for good interoperation, but I prefer it to
deleting the functionality.

> 2) we should recommend an XML Canonicalisation according to the fragment
> section of that spec.

Lets not, please. The big question here is how to provide the namespace
bindings that are in effect for the XML literal. Lets PLEASE leave the
literals themselves alone, and just make the namespace bindings available
separately. Canonicalizing the literal just makes things hard for the
DPH, which will in turn limit the use of RDF.

Ron Daniel Jr.
Standards Architect
Tel: +1 415 778 3113
Fax: +1 415 778 3131
Email: rdaniel@interwoven.com 

Visit www.interwoven.com
Moving Business to the Web 
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 02:55:59 UTC

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