- 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