- From: Ken Baclawski <kenb@ccs.neu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
The RDF specification states: "The parseType attribute should have one of the values 'Literal' or 'Resource'." In addition, the formal grammar does not allow for other values of this attribute. However, the spec contradicts this requirement by allowing a parseType other than Resource or Literal, and specifying that in this case it should interpret it as if it was Literal. These two specifications appear to conflict with one another. This issue arose when I was puzzling over why SiRPAC was not giving me an error message when I gave it the parseType "daml:collection". I subsequently also wondered whether the "daml" prefix in this case should be interpreted as a namespace or as simply part of a literal. In particular, if I happened to use "abc" as the namespace for the DAML schema, then should I use parseType="abc:collection" or parseType="daml:collection"? In other words, how should namespace specifications be interpreted in literals, such as attribute literals or parseType literals? Ken Baclawski Ken@Baclawski.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:32:44 UTC