- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:05:32 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 15:46 03/04/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >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). 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. 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. FWIW, I don't think our earlier attempt to treat XML literals within the framework of other datatypes really worked out, and I think this would be a cleaner, simpler way to go. And, as Pat notes in another message: [[ 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. ]] It's an unfortunately large change at this stage, possibly involving changes to abstract syntax, semantics, syntax and N-triples documents. But I think it would be a usefully cleaner design. I don't think we really have an option to remove XML literals. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 06:07:45 UTC