- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:32:12 +0300
- To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@w3.org>
> 3. For the common use case, where applications embed a > literal in an XML > document, it is preferable to distinguish,in the graph, between plain > and XML literals, so that e.g. different escaping conventions can be > applied. By this, do you mean, that the reason why we have special treatment of XML literals at all, in addition to fully generic support for plain and typed literals, is simply because RDF uses XML for its serialization. If RDF used some other serialization as standard, such as N3, then the need for the special datatype would not exist (insofar as the need for the RDF specs to define it)? If so, I agree. Thus, XML literals are not singled out because XML is by itself more special than some other lexicalization, but because it simply intersects with RDF's own serialization and it's very useful to keep track of that in a standardized manner. -- I couldn't think of anything else you didn't cover. Patrick
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 04:32:17 UTC