Re: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer

Drawing your attention back to the original subject of this thread :-), 
does any of the discussion going on here lead to specific suggested 
changes to the parseType="Literal" text in the Primer (i.e., the most 
recent editor's draft, 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/ )?
Dave has already mentioned that quotes need to be escaped in the 
resulting triples because N-Triples escapes them [I note that the W3C 
RDF Validator doesn't generate them though], and newlines and spaces 
need to be accounted for.  Anything else?

--Frank


Brian McBride wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:21, Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
>>On 29 Jul 2003 10:45:35 +0100
>>Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>><rdf:Description>
>>>  <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><em></eg:prop>
>>></rdf:Description>
>>>
>>This isn't good XML, see below.
>>
> 
> Oh bu**er!  There goes what was left of my credibility!
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>>Note also that the canonical XML form of empty elements such as
>>"<br/>" is "<br></br>"
>>
> 
> I didn't know that.  Learned something.
> 
> 
>>(see Element Nodes in
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#ProcessingModel
>>)
>>
>>(Also, unless there is a particular reason, maybe don't stick with
>>HTML-evocative tags?)
>>
> 
> That was deliberate, in that representing text is the I18N design
> centre, but you are right, it shouldn't really matter.
> 
>>Is this form teaching you too many things at once: ?
>>
> 
> Seems like it :)
> 
> 
>> Concrete Syntax                  | Abstract Syntax       | Denotation
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> <eg:prop>a</eg:prop>             | "a"                   | "a"
>> <eg:prop>&lt;ab&gt;</eg:prop>    | "<ab>"                | "<ab>"
>> <eg:prop pt="L"><ab/></eg:prop>  | "<ab></ab>^^rdf:XMLLiteral | C("<ab></ab>")
>> <eg:prop pt="L">&amp;</eg:prop>  | "&"^^rdf:XMLLiteral   | C("&")
>>
>>I'm not sure whether I'm capturing what you say here, your version of
>>the table sort of implies the the canonical XML form isn't in the
>>lexical form of the XML literal in the abstract syntax (as written in N-Triples).
>>
> 
> Right, that was another mistake :(
> 
> Thanks for fixing my mistakes.  Maybe I can take some consolation that
> format works in that my mistakes were pretty obvious.  Then again, maybe
> not.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 08:30:11 UTC