W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform

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>
Message-ID: <B892BC4A.EA26%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
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 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC