Re: after-hours conversation (#literal-as-resources #literal-is-xml-structure #xmllang #graph #identity-anon-resources #literal-subjects) from Dave Beckett on 2001-10-17 (w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from October 2001)

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:48:44 +0100
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: Bill de hOra <bdehora@interx.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <14347.1003315724@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Brian McBride said:
> DaveB,
> 
> Does your new WD propose an answer to this this question?  Does it
> propose and
> an answer to the general qnames as attribute values question?

"This question" being parseTypes - not yet although the warning idea
is probably a good idea and I'll have a go

I don't do any of the #literal-* issues; they are for the model.

At
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values
I've got:

   rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values

    Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes
    such as rdf:about.

    Action: Will not be addressed in the current RDF/XML syntax since
    it would require changes to the syntax that would not be
    backwards compatible. New XML syntaxes will likely include such a
    feature.

Dave

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 06:51:57 UTC