- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:58:10 -0500
- To: RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
There are some issues in the current RDF spec[1] with alternate parseTypes
(currently used by DAML and CWM).
The first is that alternate parseTypes, while allowed by the text of the
specification, are not allowed by the grammar which constrains them to
either Resource or Literal.
Also, while the text of the spec says:
With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'.
It does not state that the value of the parseType must be passed along with
the literal, which seems essential for proper processing by an application.
Finally, it would be nice if parseTypes were namespace qualified, as DAML
(daml:collection) and CWM (log:Quote) seem to have done. However, the
semantics of these QNames is unclear, as DAML seems to state the name must
be daml:collection regardless of the prefix for the DAML namespace in the
document.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222
--
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 23:58:21 UTC