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

Re: RDF and mixed content

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:09:36 +0100
To: paul@prescod.net
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

There is no need for the concept of a forged rdf-wrapper. Just as the
integer 5 does not have to be "wrapped" to be a value, the nodeset
corresponding to an XML literal should not have to be wrapped. It is
just a value.

Hi Paul

you may be right, but I think I need to throw this one back to you asking
for specific textual changes. (At least a sketch).

The problems we needed to address include:
- clarity about whether an XML Literal is or is not the same as a plain
- clarity about when two XML Literals are the same value (needed for
instance in WebOnt cardinality constraints)
- clarity about which bits of the XML InfoSet are included in the
rdf:parseType="Literal" and which bits are not.
- backward compatibility with RDF Model and Syntax
- adequate treatment of the language tag (i.e. xml:lang is significant both
in the RDF/XML constructs, such as the property element, and within any
marked up content e.g. on an XML element within an XML literal).

I believe that the solution we have proposed achieves these, and does so in
a way that depends on the family of XML recommendations, rather than RDF
Core inventing a special. I believe that the migration from the previous WD
in which xml literal was a special variant of literal, to being a datatype
is a clearer exposition.

Clearly the rdf-wrapper thingy is a bit of a wart on an otherwise elegant
treatment ...

You seem to be arguing for an XML Literal that has some abstract XML
structure as it value. Which one? Where is the definition of equality?
Without specificity it is not possible to respond to a criticism of "you
didn't do it right".

Thanks for your comment.

Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 10:10:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC