- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:04:04 +0200
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I just thought I'd try to summarize what I saw as the necessary parser extensions required to support the datatyping idioms, which would be necessary to always achieve the correct idiom from the intuitive serializations mirroring rdf:value usage. (of course, these aren't manditory, but I think reasonable and surely beneficial to users) At present, given any of the following, all parsers (almost) do "the right thing" and result in the required bNode idiom: <dc:date rdf:value="2002-02-14"/> <dc:date rdf:value="2002-02-14" rdf:dtype="&xsd;date"/> <dc:date rdf:parseType="Resource"> <rdf:value>2002-02-14</rdf:value> <rdf:dtype rdf:resource="&xsd;date"/> </dc:date> <dc:date> <rdf:Description> <rdf:value>2002-02-14</rdf:value> <rdf:dtype rdf:resource="&xsd;date"/> </rdf:Description> </dc:date> (I'm leaving the datatype idiom out of this, since it can't be treated in any generic fashion by the parser) Where parsers don't do the right thing, is in the second example with the rdf:dtype attribute, which results in the xsd:date URI being a literal rather than a resource, so parsers would have to be updated to recognize rdf:dtype and give it special interpretation as being similar to rdf:resource. If we use rdf:lform rather than rdf:value, then we would have to also give rdf:lform the same treatment as rdf:value now recieves. I think that's all that would be required, and it seems to be pretty straightforward, even trivial. Comments from the parser implementors? 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 Friday, 15 February 2002 04:02:40 UTC