- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:15:22 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- cc: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>>Patrick Stickler said: > On 2002-02-11 17:28, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > [perhaps these should each be in their own thread?] > > rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure : A literal containing XML markup is not a > > simple string, but is an XML structure. > > > > This issue was put on hold pending the outcome of the datatypes discussion. I > > suggest we are far enough along on datatypes to bring this one back. > > I propose that we treat XML literals just like datatyped literals. The > complex document type is similar to a datatype where the members of the > lexical space are XML instances and the members of the value space are > infoset instances. In a similar argument to my reply on xml:lang; this means that the mapping from RDF/XML syntax to model would require the use of RDF + RDFS + RDF datatyping to model what was previously provided by RDF M&S alone. Although since for XML literals, it was previously rather vague on this - the whole point of resolving the issue - this is something we have to take care on; it would be moving something to a possibly non-core (where core=RDF M&S equivalent) part of the RDF. <snip/> [ Rest of Patrick's reply at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0287.html ] Dave
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 12:18:34 UTC