- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 16:49:39 +0100
- To: dehora <dehora@eircom.net>
- CC: RDFCore <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
dehora wrote: > > > Brian McBride: > > > > Bill de hÓra wrote: > > [...] > > > 1: changing them to this: > > > > > > 6.32 parseLiteral " rdf:parseType=\"rdf:Literal\"" > > > 6.33 parseResource " rdf:parseType=\"rdf:Resource\"" > > > > You seem to be proposing a change to the language. Do > > you have compelling reasons for making this change? > > Brian, I would say that this was proposed syntax change: it sounds less > dramatic ;) Didn't mean to sound dramatic. I suppose I'm looking at the charter and dragging my feet again. Personally, I'm sympathetic to this change. However, I'm not sure there is a problem here we need to fix. What difference would it make if we did nothing? > But in the light of the some M&S assertions which are not so > clear in concert: > > [[[ > Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by RDF. > ]]] > > [[[ > The parseType attribute should have one of the values 'Literal' or > 'Resource'. > ]]] > > [[[ > With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'. > ]]] > > the acknowledgement in the M&S: > > [[[ > The RDF Model and Syntax Working Group acknowledges that the > parseType='Literal' mechanism is a minimum-level solution to the > requirement to express an RDF statement with a value that has XML > markup. Additional complexities of XML such as canonicalization of > whitespace are not yet well defined. Future work of the W3C is expected > to resolve such issues in a uniform manner for all applications based on > XML. Future versions of RDF will inherit this work and may extend it as > we gain insight from further application experience. > ]]] What is unclear exactly? Are we comfortable that an existing processor encountering rdf:parseType="rdf:Resource" will treat it as rdf:parseType="Literal"? Brian
Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 11:53:16 UTC