- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:12:39 +0300
- To: <garret@globalmentor.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Garret Wilson [mailto:garret@globalmentor.com] > Sent: 07 September, 2003 01:04 > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: literals and XMLLiterals > > > > "RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax" states that there are only plain > literals and typed literals, with XMLLiteral being a > predefined type of > typed literal. Does this mean the following two assertions are > semantically equivalent? > > <rdf:Description> > <my:xml parseType="Literal">XML content</my:xml> > </rdf:Description> > > <rdf:Description> > <my:xml > rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLi > teral">XML > content</my:xml> > </rdf:Description> Yes, but only if the 'XML Content' in the latter case is canonicalized in exactly the same way as the RDF parser will do so for the first case. I.e., you can specify XML literals using rdf:datatype, but the burden is on you to ensure that the lexical form is canonicalized properly. If you use parseType="Literal", the RDF parser takes care of that complexity for you. Cheers, Patrick
Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 03:16:32 UTC