So we have, if I understand well, 3 propositions for representing typed data: <p xsi:type="du">x</p> <!-- by Peter F. Patel-Schneider--> <p rdf:parseType="du">x</p> <!-- by Geoff Chappell--> <p rdf:resource="xsd:du:x"/> <!-- by Patrick Stickler--> all resulting to the same RDF triple, most simply represented by Patrick's version. On Thu, 2001-11-22 at 17:34, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > 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? Because the XML syntax of RDF, as proposed in the RDF M&S recommendation, does *not* rely on XML schema (neither does it have a DTD, btw). Hence it needs another *explicit* way of expressing the type of a value. Patrick's version is the most simple, though not very intuitive. I also like Geoff's proposal because it does not need to extend the syntax (only the parsers), and I do think that rdf:parseType works well for that purpose. On the other hand, I can imagine an RDF *harvester* (by contrast to a *parser*) able to produce RDF triple from XML schema-compliant documents, provided that - we define some general rules about XMLS to RDF mapping (in a way similar to the approach used in http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink2rdf/ ) - the schema contains some additionnal RDF "hints", like default values for rdf:parseType in the appropriate elements. Pierre-AntoineReceived on Monday, 26 November 2001 06:27:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:33 UTC