- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:31:23 -0500
- To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "danbri" <danbri@w3.org>
> If you want an XML string in N-Triples, use:
> http://example.org#foo http://example.org#bar xml"<foo> content> </foo>"
>
> or possibly:
> http://example.org#foo http://example.org#bar "<foo> content>
</foo>"^^http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#XMLLiteral
>
> I'm still not sure if we are keeping both of the latter two forms.
For the moment lets use the latter. For symmetry sake this should be
allowed:
<ex:foo>
<ex:bar
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#XMLLiteral">
<foo> content </foo>
</ex:bar>
</ex:foo>
>
> What you seem to be proposing is that all simple RDF literals are not
> just strings+languages, but can be (strings+languages OR raw XML)
> ie changing
> "String Literals" http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#xtocid103642
> to a union of that with
> "XML Literals" http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#xtocid103643
>
> with consequent N-Triples and RDF/XML syntax changes.
>
> Or maybe you are asking for just RDF/XML convienence changes; it isn't
clear.
>
I am saying that N-triples already allows XML literals, given a specific
URI, and any URI that identifies an XML datatype should be allowed.
At worst, processors that don't recognize such datatypes would treat the XML
string as a literal string and this would be no worse that processors that
don't recognize any specific datatype URI. XML is just like a number in this
case -- a string that certain processors understand to have specific
syntactic constraints and semantics.
Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 08:50:40 UTC