- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:24:40 +0200
- To: ext Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-11 19:15, "ext Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
Or rather, the use of RDF + RDFS + RDF DT provides a solution
that was not realy addressed at all by M&S.
> 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.
I agree that it may sound like a rather radical suggestion, but
it very nicely puts interpretation (including all parsing issues)
of XML literals into the application space while still allowing
folks to express typing and other knowledge about them.
It was just an idea. I'd love to hear alternatives.
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 12:23:30 UTC