- From: dehora <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:30:57 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
dehora wrote: > [...] > The worst case is > an old parser treating 'rdf:Resource' as 'Literal': I acknowledge that > interop would fail in this case where receiving software has not been > upgraded, but that would a software defect rather than a spec defect. > Asking implementers to inspect parseType attribute value strings > containing ':' and check against the qualified name for the RDF > namespace is a simple enough task, certainly no harder that checking the > attribute itself for namespace qualification, which we're already asking > people to do. Dan Connolly : It's a small change, but not one that I think can be reasonably read into the RDF 1.0 spec. We're not designing RDF 1.0; we're clarifying the spec, right? >> I don't draw a useful distinction between a clarification and a redesign if that's whats needed. I figure if we can go as far as producing a model theory to clarify the spec, we can certainly add some words about using parseType to qualify literals. Dan Connolly : If/when we get around to designing, I'll suggest that we replace rdf:parseType with xsi:type (from XML Schema) wholesale. >> Sure, you can do that. Or maybe find a way to extend rdf:parseType from xsi:type and stay somewhat backward compatible (could that be done inside RDFS' mandate now? Danbri??). In the meantime people will still have to tunnel type information about XML-RDF Literals in some form or another. So we might as well offer them an upgrade path. Bill
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 09:32:55 UTC