- 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
>>>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. Dave
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 12:56:01 UTC