- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:23:22 +0200
- To: ext Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-15 12:46, "ext Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: >> 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. Right. OK. So long as values for rdf:dtype are always treated as URIrefs, that's fine. >> 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. Right. So the only needed tweak is treating rdf:dtype the same as rdf:type to always get a URIref. That simplifies the decision between rdf:value and rdf:lform since it doesn't impact the parser. >> 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. That's what I thought. Thanks Dave. 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 06:40:06 UTC