- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:17:37 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
This is OK, but might not be what you want.
e.g. normal XML rules would suggest that in addition
<xmlnum
>one</xmlnum> --> 1
(Whitespace differs).
This could be thrown in the lexical-to-value mapping, but we do not have an
extensible mechanism for rdf:XMLLiteral.
There might be a postponed issue; and one could experiment with
<rdf:Description>
<eg:prop rdf:datatype="⪚mynum" rdf:parseType="Literal">
<xmlnum
>one</xmlnum>
</eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>
but to do so would not conform with the WDs.
Jeremy
pat hayes wrote:
>
> Is it legal to include XML markup inside non-XMLLiteral literal strings?
> For example, suppose I wanted to define a datatype called ex:XMLnumber
> whose lexical space was all strings of the form
>
> <xmlnum>English-number-phrase</xmlnum>
>
> and whose L2V mapping looked like
>
> <xmlnum>one</xmlnum> --> 1
> <xmlnum>two</xmlnum> --> 2
> ...
> <xmlnum>three hundred and ninety seven</xmlnum> --> 397
> ....
>
> and write literals like
>
> "<xmlnum>three hundred and ninety seven</xmlnum>"^^ex:XMLnumber
>
> to refer to 397, would that be legal RDF? There are no semantic reasons
> to exclude it.
>
> Pat
>
> PS> This information has been requested by Roland and I don't know the
> answer.
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 15:18:25 UTC