- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 19:26:10 -0500 (EST)
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: Re: pfps-08 last call comment on typed literals Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:42:12 -0600 [...] > >I think that the best way to go would be to remove rdf:XMLLiteral > >entirely. It is a bastard amalgam of syntax and semantics that provides > >far greater pain than benefit. > > Yeh, well, the world isn't perfect. Whatareyagonnado? Complain! Maybe even object. > >If, however, it is not possible to remove rdf:XMLLiteral, then why not > >separate its syntactic and semantic components? Simply make it be the case > >that the processing of rdf:XMLLiteral in the RDF/XML does all the > >non-standard stuff in the translation to triples (much like rdf:nodeid > >does). > > We have done except for the lang tag business. So finish the job! :-) > > So the translation of > > <subject> > > <predicate parsetype="rdf:XMLLiteral"> > > [some text] > > </predicate> > > </subject> > >into a triple would be something like > > subject predicate "[some other text]"^^rdf:XMLDocument . > >where [some other text] included all the junk involved with rdf:XMLLiteral, > >including the language tag stuff. > > Jeremy is the one to ask. Jeremy, can we do this?? Note that this > would then mean that we could GET RID OF LANG TAGS IN THE GRAPH > ALTOGETHER. Just thought I'd mention it in passing. > > Pat > > > This would allow rdf:XMLDocument to be a > >standard datatype. You could even use rdf:XMLLiteral instead of > >rdf:XMLDocument if you really needed to, but I wouldn't recommend it. > > > >> Pat > > > >peter peter
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 19:26:29 UTC