- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 22:29:37 +0100
- To: "dehora" <dehora@eircom.net>
- Cc: "W3C Rdfcore" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Mostly, it seems reasonable to me. I have some comments on this:
At 05:19 AM 9/14/01 +0100, dehora wrote:
>(p4) The local part values specified are 'literal', 'resource' and
>'canonical'. These three are bound to the RDF namespace [fixme]. By
>convention, the prefix 'rdf' is used as the namespace qualifier,
>although any prefix can be used. Future editions of this document may
>add new local parts as deemed appropriate. The local part 'literal' has
>the same interpretation as 'Literal'. The local part 'resource' has the
>same interpretation as 'Resource'. The local part 'canonical' specifies
>that the literal should be treated as canonical XML [see fixme]; fixme:
>more+markup examples.
(a) I'm not yet convinced that there is any need/value to distinguish
between Literal and Canonical -- see other message on related topic of
Literals.
(b) This is picky, but I think it's confusing to use different case for the
qualified and non-qualified forms of Literal, etc. I tend to view your
proposal as providing default application of the RDF namespace for
unqualified names; so having 'rdf:Literal' and 'Literal' as equivalent
values seems more natural to me.
For absolute clarity, I think there should be an example that uses a prefix
other than rdf; e.g.
<r:RDF xmlns:r="http://..." xmlns:x="http://...">
<r:Description>
<x:prop r:parseType="r:Literal">This is a <i>literal</i> value</x:prop>
</r:Description>
</r:RDF>
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 17:34:15 UTC