- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:24:00 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, "Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>>Brian McBride said:
> At 13:47 04/02/2002 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > Having to use parseType for *every* typed literal will be
> > > far too cumbersome.
> >
> >Right, but not in the case when parseType declaration applies to all
> >subordinate XML structure (I think that's the way parseType works right
> >now).
>
> That isn't what I expected for parseType="Resource". Dave, what does the
> syntax doc say about that?
parseType is defined such that if you use something that isn't
parseType="Resource", you are dealing with an XML literal. In the
refactored syntax, this is an XML Infoset.
If you invent a new parseType ("untidy" say), old applications will
treat it as "Literal", and thus any content will be treated as an XML
literal. RDF M&S did note that future parseTypes values were
expected for encoding XML content, not RDF statements, but didn't say
what to do with them or how they applied.
See RDF M&S
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#202
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#203
At some point I'm hoping we'll decide what to do with these rich
structured values in this datatypes discussion. We have discussed
before various ways to do this - XML Canonicalisation, serialising
and treating parseType content as a string (sequence of Unicode chars).
Dave
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 06:27:21 UTC