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

RE: Change in definition of RDF literals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:19:41 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90E4F@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <duerst@w3.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 23 May, 2003 14:45
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); duerst@w3.org; jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Change in definition of RDF literals
> At 14:14 23/05/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > > Because this is parseType="Literal", the literal content is not
> > > canonicalized by the parser,
> >
> >Don't you mean *is* canonicalized by the parser?
> Er, yes!
> >And for round tripping, we'd need the good old form
> >
> >     <Subj> <foo> XML"<span xml:lang='en'>blargh</span>" .
> I don't see that.

How would you not need a distinct "flag" in the graph? 

If both of the following serialization forms result in the
same triple, you've lost the information necessary to 
output the triple in RDF/XML using the same serialization
form. I.e. if both

   <foo>&lt;span xml:lang='en'&gt;blargh&lt;/span&gt;</foo>


   <foo rdf:parseType="Literal">
      <span xml:lang='en'>blargh</span>

result in 

   _:x <foo> "<span xml:lang='en'>blargh</span>" .

then it's not possible to do round tripping in a manner that
preserves the original form of expression.

> But, as you say, let's leave the field for others to comment.

Yes, though it's not pleasant for me to leave on vacation without
some idea of how this might work out (I think back to last year and
get the cold sweats ;-)

With respect and apologies to Martin, I propose to the WG that there 
has not been sufficient arguments in the feedback on this issue
to suggest that the proposed solution -- removing lang tags from
all typed literals, including rdfs:XMLLiteral -- should be
changed and propose that we stick with that decision.

We have no loss of functionality, greatly simplify the datatyping
solution, and do so in a way that does not present any unknown
risks beyond what has already been considered by the WG.


Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 05:19:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC