Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-03-08

On 2002-03-08 1:47, "ext bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:


> 
> 10: Clarifying F2F Literals Decision
> There are two kinds of literals and each is a pair
> 
> 
> See:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-26-1

Didn't we agree that there is one kind of literal and it
is a triple?

Having two kinds of literals suggests that we need more
than just rdfs:Literal...

Perhaps it was the two different NTriples representations
suggested that gave an impression of two kinds of literals?

Perhaps we should have a single consistent NTriples
representation such that, the first 'field' is the
parseType bit, the second field is the literal string,
and the third field is either a language code or '*'
and in NTriples syntax, all three fields are manditory:

  0-"35"-*
  0-"chat"-en
  0-"chat"-fr
  1-"foo <em>bar</em> bas"-*

etc.

In the case of XML literals, the string would contain
whatever canonicalized form is decided upon.

The XML and N3 serializations can offer syntactic sugar
if they like. E.g.. N3 can say that if either the first
or third field is missing, they default to '0' and '*'
respectively, so folks can just write in N3

   Bob ex:age "35" .
   MyBook dc:title "Wooga"-en .
   Chap1 dc:title 1-"<title>Wooga</title>" .

which equate to the NTriples

   Bob ex:age 0-"35"-* .
   MyBook dc:title 0-"Wooga"-en .
   Chap1 x:head 1-"<title>Chapter 1</title>"-* .

Eh?


> 12: Datatypes
> Action: 2002-02-26#8  PatrickS  Create XML examples for datatypes doc

Done.

Attached is an edited version of Pat's stake-in-the-ground
datatyping summary. I expect that additional RDF/XML examples
will be needed, and I will contribute those as they are
identified.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com