W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: RDF should allow XML datatypes

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:31:23 -0500
Message-ID: <00e701c28018$a4fb7ab0$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
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>
> 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

                <foo> content </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

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.

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 08:50:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:01 UTC