- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:53:26 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
I'm broadly supportive of this approach. What I think may be controversial here is the explicit incorporation of <rdf-wrapper> into the abstract syntax. It's purpose seems to be to capture the language information for this form of literal. (I have some thoughts, but I think to raise them now would muddy the important debate.) If we go this route, I would favour removing language tags from all typed literals in the abstract syntax. #g -- At 11:31 04/04/2003 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Peter Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > So finish the job! :-) > >I think I will try to echo what I hear Peter suggest, since Patrick seems to >be (1) following this thread (2) of the opinion that there is not a proposal >that changes rdf:XMLLiteral to be a normal rather than a special datatype. > >So: >We have not been contemplating changing either: >1) the rdf:parseType="Literal" syntax >2) the representation of this, as a canonical XML doc, in the domain of >discourse >We have changed the treatment so that: > most of the syntactic transformation of from (1) to (2) is done in Syntax >and not in rdf:XMLLiteral mapping rules. >We could go the whole hog, and make the mapping rules of rdf:XMLLiteral the >identity. >Leaving (2) fixed we have that the syntax document not only has to >canonicalise the literal content, but also it converts it into an XML >document as currently specified in concepts. >This would change test cases: e.g. > ><rdf:RDF> > <rdf:Description xml:lang="en"> > <rdfs:comment rdf:parseType="Literal" > ><b>Bold</b></rdfs:comment> > </rdf:Description> ></rdf:RDF> > >would correspond to n-triples > >_:a rdfs:comment >"<rdf-wrapper xml:lang=\"en\"><b>Bold</b></rdf-wrapper>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral . > >or something like that (I don't swear I've canonicalized correctly). >Whether or not we include a redundant @en in the literal is immaterial. > >We may well then have >rdf:XMLLiteral as a subdatatype of xsd:string >i.e. it is completely well-behaved and may or may not have synonyms and we >don't care, and language tags never participate in l2v mappings. We could >even ditch them all together from typed literals. > >Jeremy ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 06:10:58 UTC