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

On 2002-02-14 0:01, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:


> <dc:title parseType="Literal">A <em>very</em>
> Long Story</dc:title>

I always thought parseType="Literal" simply was
syntactic sugar to avoid the need to escape all
the XML significant markup characters with entities
(e.g. &lt;em> etc.)

But in the graph, it's the same kind of literal
as any other kind of literal.

If these are different kinds of literals, is there
not a fourth, including both parstType="Literal"
and xml:lang:

   <dc:title xml:lang="en" rdf:parseType="Literal">
      A <em>very</em> Long Story
   </dc:title>

is the same literal as

   <dc:title xml:lang="en">
      A &lt;em>very&lt;/em> Long Story
   </dc:title>
 
I think a literal is a literal is a literal (though
it may be a structured object rather than a simple
string).

And given that, RDF parsers shouldn't pay attention
to any namespaces, or other markup issues, etc. in
a parseType="Literal" fragment (or any literal)
but should just slurp it in 'literally'.

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 Thursday, 14 February 2002 03:46:53 UTC