- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 20:29:12 +0100
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <duerst@w3.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 12:19 26/05/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > >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.
Ah, but that particular flavour of round-tripping was already lost...
How does one roun-trip via the abstract graph and back to each of the
following:
<rdf:Description about="http://foo.com/myname"
xmlns:foo="http://foo.com/"
xmlns:rdf=...>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://foo.com/mytype">
<foo:prop>bar</foo:prop>
</rdf:Description>
and
<foo:mytype about="http://foo.com/myname"
xmlns:foo="http://foo.com/"
xmlns:rdf=...>
<foo:prop>bar</foo:prop>
</rdf:Description>
and
<foo:mytype about="http://foo.com/myname"
xmlns:foo="http://foo.com/"
xmlns:rdf=...
foo:prop="bar"/>
etc.
...
I grant the case in point runs a little deeper, because in the current spec
there is a distinction between XML literals and plain text literals *in the
abstract syntax*. I understood Martin to suggest that this distinction is
un-needed -- if one accepts this premise, why is round-tripping of
particular syntactic forms of any importance?
#g
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 15:34:14 UTC