- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:26:51 +0300
- 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: 26 May, 2003 22:29 > 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 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? It comes down to integration of RDF tools with XML tools. Round tripping makes life alot easier. I would argue that if round-tripping of XML literals is not important, then neither are XML literals, and we can simply have plain literals and applications must employ the necessary escaping/quoting mechanisms for all literals when producing RDF/XML. Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 05:26:58 UTC