- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:11:44 +0300
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "ext w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org" <w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org>, Patrick Sti ckler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
_____________Original message ____________ Subject: Re: rdfs:XMLLiteral related syntax changes Sender: ext w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org <w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:33:28 +0300 ... e.g. <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><a>blah</a></foo:prop> and <ex:prop rdf:datatype="&rdfs;XMLLiteral"><a>blah</a></foo:prop> entail one another (with knowledge of the datatype). Likewise, the following two are synonymous <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><a>blah</a></foo:prop> <ex:prop rdf:datatype="&rdfs;XMLLiteral" rdf:parseType="Literal"><a>blah</a></foo:prop> The parse type and datatype are not the same, though if not otherwise specified, an XML literal "defaults" to rdfs:XMLLiteral, so in the second case above the rdf:datatype attribute is redundant and unnecessary. Yet, per Jonathan's inquiry, we could/should support the arbitrary typing of XML literals by complex types. E.g. <ex:prop rdf:datatype="&xhtml;title" rdf:parseType="Literal"><title>blah</title></foo:prop> or, alternately, and synonymously <ex:prop rdf:datatype="&xhtml;title"><title>blah</title></foo:prop> Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 03:14:47 UTC