- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:34:34 -0500
- To: geoff@sover.net
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
From: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net> Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:42:30 -0500 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter F. > > Patel-Schneider > > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:34 PM > > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > > Cc: joint-committee@daml.org > > Subject: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot > > > > An RDF/XML serialization of an RDF graph element of the form > > < s , p , v > for v a data value > > is of the form > > <... s ...> > > ... > > <p xsi:type="du">x</p> > > ... > > </...> > > where d is some datatype with URI du > > for which v in DTC(d) and x is a lexical form for v in d. > > > > Thus in the serialization we need access to the lexical-to-value mapping, > > but not in the model theory. > > If you're going to put the mapping in the parsing, why not just use > 'parseType=' to make clear it's a parser directive? Precisely because XML Schema has a perfectly good way of doing it, so why not use that way? > Happy Thanksgiving, > > Geoff Chappell peter
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 11:35:15 UTC