- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 13 Feb 2002 16:01:17 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 15:20, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > >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. > > Wow, I missed that one. If we said yes, that would have made XML > Dtyping a hell of a lot easier! I thought that Dan C. was insistent > that literals had to be simple strings. In the first 10 or 20 messages on the subject, I was careful to distinguish parseType="Literal" literals from the normal <prop>val</prop> RDF literals. I got tired of doing it and dropped it. RDF has two (or three?) sorts of literals: <dc:title>A Christmas Carol</dc:title> which looks to me like a pretty plain string <dc:title parseType="Literal">A <em>very</em> Long Story</dc:title> which I have suggested should be treated like a programming-language literal, i.e. short-hand for <dc:title> <InfoItemSequence> <first><CharacterSequence>A </CharacterSequence> ... </dc:title> For details, see parseType="Literal" as syntactic sugar for infoset description (#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure) From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org) Date: Wed, Oct 10 2001 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0153.html The third sort has a (non-trivial) xml:lang attribute on it or one of its ancestors. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:01:56 UTC