W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2003

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

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:28:05 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, i18n <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>

At 11:23 03/07/30 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:

> > (4)
> > Concrete Syntax: <eg:prop pt="L"><br/></eg:prop>
> >
> > Abstract Syntax: "<br></br>"^^rdf:XML
> >
> > Denotation:
> >      sequence(markup('<br>'), markup('</br>'))
>This seems like the key notion you are introducing.  That we could have
>defined/adopted a different "value space" for XML.  We did, at one point
>have something similar on the table; there was a suggestion that
>parseType="Literal" should generate an RDF representation of the

I see. I didn't want to propose that the Infoset be reflected in RDF.
I think Tim expressed some concerns against that. I just proposed that
the Infoset be used as the most appropriate denotation of XML Literals,
without any implications for implementations. It seems to me that
the Infoset is the most appropriate denotation for XML Literals because
it is a well-defined spec, it captures the 'nature' of XML, and it is
definitely better suited for the job that a sequence of octets or
a sequence of characters. The later, in my view, would be similar to
saying that an integer denotes a sequence of digits (not starting
with a zero), or that it denotes a sequence of octets in (packed)
BCD notation. These seem appropriate when looking into actual
representations on a machine, but not when talking about denotations.

Anyway, if you find a solution that avoids the later but doesn't
explicitly mention the Infoset, that's okay by me, too.

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 11:17:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:24 UTC