W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure [was Re: Outstanding Issues]

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>
Message-ID: <25647.1013447722@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>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.
> > 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.


[ Rest of Patrick's reply at

Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 12:18:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC