- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:57:13 +0000
- To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
While I recognize that there are significant technical difficulties to allowing literals in list-collections, I also have considerable sympathy with the view expressed here. In my own work with RDF, using Notation3 rather than the XML syntax, I have found lists containing literals to be a useful feature. #g -- At 05:17 PM 2/20/03 -0500, you wrote: >-------------- >WOWG comments on RDF language decisions >-------------- > >i. Design of rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:parseType="Literal": > >The full integration of this feature of RDF into OWL necessitates that the >denotation in the domain of discourse be fully defined by the source RDF/XML >file. We therefore request that you remove sufficient implementation >variability to ensure that this is the case. An example fix would be to >require an RDF/XML parser to use a specific canonicalization on input. > >ii.Constraints on rdf:parsetype="Collection" > >We would prefer that rdf:parsetype="Collection" would be allowed to be a >list of datatype literals, not just a list of RDF node elements. This, >would permit some constructs in OWL that are difficult under the current >design. ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 13:06:29 UTC