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

Re: XMLLiteral belongs in RDF namespace, not RDFs

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:53:51 +0000
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <21682.1036778031@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Dan Connolly said:
> I see
>   rdfs:XMLLiteral
> in
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF%20Model%20Theory_Oct_draft.html
> That should be rdf:XMLLiteral, right Dave?

No, we agreed rdfs:XMLLiteral

I noted this danger earlier this week.

> eek... it's there in the syntax editor's draft
> too:
> If literal-language is the empty string then the value is the
> concatenation of """ (1 double quote), the value of the literal-value
> accessor and ""^^<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#XMLLiteral>" (1
> double quote).
> -- http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

It is in the soon to published WD too.

> Let's please be careful... there is no
> dependency on RDFS from RDF.

Since it is adding a new term that has a meaning (will get some
description in an RDF schema document) rather than something for
building the RDF/XML syntax, I thought our policy was to add stick
them in RDFS namespace.

> I thought we could get away with a combined
> model theory spec, at least for a while.
> But I think that time is ending.
> And I'm starting to wonder about the primer...
> ah; the primer is cited non-normatively
> from that syntax draft; as long as we
> do that, it can have both RDF and RDFS.

Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 12:56:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC