- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:46:24 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>>Patrick Stickler said: > > 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: Do the right thing with respect to Pat's datatypes V3 doc? http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary3.html 1) > <dc:date rdf:value="2002-02-14"/> which is shorthand for <dc:date> <rdf:Description> <rdf:value>2002-02-14</rdf:value> </rdf:Description> </dc:date> 2) > <dc:date rdf:value="2002-02-14" rdf:dtype="&xsd;date"/> which is shorthand for <dc:date> <rdf:Description> <rdf:value>2002-02-14</rdf:value> <rdf:dtype>&xsd;date</rdf:dtype> <!-- see below --> </rdf:Description> </dc:date> 3) > <dc:date rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <rdf:value>2002-02-14</rdf:value> > <rdf:dtype rdf:resource="&xsd;date"/> > </dc:date> which is shorthand for the same thing as 2) except the rdf:dtype value is an URI: <dc:date> <rdf:Description> <rdf:value>2002-02-14</rdf:value> <rdf:dtype rdf:resource="&xsd;date"/> </rdf:Description> </dc:date> 4) > <dc:date> > <rdf:Description> > <rdf:value>2002-02-14</rdf:value> > <rdf:dtype rdf:resource="&xsd;date"/> > </rdf:Description> > </dc:date> Which is the longhand, same as 3) > (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. No, it is similar to rdf:type - the only property that when used as an attribute always is a URI(ref). rdf:resource is a syntax mechanism, rdf:type & rdf:dtype is/will are RDF properties. > 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. lform? I've missed that. However, rdf:value has no special syntax support, it is just a property like any other. > I think that's all that would be required, and it seems > to be pretty straightforward, even trivial. > > Comments from the parser implementors? Trivial, yes. Unsure if anything is needed for rdf:lform Dave
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 05:46:26 UTC