- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:58:55 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 13:16 15/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: >On 2002-02-15 12:10, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > > At 11:04 15/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: > > [...] > >> <dc:date rdf:value="2002-02-14" rdf:dtype="&xsd;date"/> > > > > Am I right that under the current proposal this can be more compactly > written: > > > > <dc:date xsd:date="2002-02-14"/> > >Yes and no. It is more compact, but is less local (thus it >is not exactly an equivalent variant of the doublet idiom). true - its a different triple structure as Dave said. I'm not clear what value the greater "locality" brings. >In this case, it is not clear from the RDF that xsd:date is a >datatype. It could be any kind of property at all. Hmmm, I expect datatype aware implementations to recognise that xsd:date is a datatype. > It has >no more datatyping clarity to the parser than I don't expect the parser to care whether its a datatype or not. > <dc:date foo:bar="2002-02-14"/> > >And it is unclear, if e.g xml:lang is specified, whether >the value of xsd:date or foo:bar is the actual literal >value I don't know what you mean by the "actual" literal value. However, I don't believe there is any ambiguity in the triple structure. >of the dc:date property or just some extra attribution >of the bNode. Thus, schema knowledge would be required >by the parser (not just pre-defined automatic statements >in the spec) to know for sure that xsd:date or foo:bar >should be treated as rdf:value. I don't see that at all. The transform to triples is schema independent. >And one would not, I think, expect xml:lang to apply to >all attributes of the element Why not? >-- or really to any of >the attributes, but rather only the content of the element, >and it's just a trick of rdf:value that the content can >be hidden (contracted) into an attribute. > >If I have > > <dc:title rdf:value="Foo" xml:lang="en" x:scope="237a87"/> > >we're saying that "Foo" is English, but not "237a87". Where is that specified? [snip] >I admit that it's a handy form of expression, but these >issues have to be resolved before we're completely >done, I think. I see no issues. > > which would require no change to the parsers? > >Correct, in that the required bNode is generated. >Apologies for missing this in my earlier examples. > >Though, as pointed out above, proper attachment of xml:lang >to the literal either requires schema knowledge or results >in over-attachment to all attributes. That kinda depends on what you mean by proper. In my view xml:lang can be handled properly without schema knowledge, and in fact it would be highly improper to require it. Parsers parse. Brian
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 09:00:40 UTC