W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

Re: N3 vs. XML (rdf:parseType)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:11:21 -0500
Message-ID: <3B0A8FA9.401D1B79@w3.org>
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
CC: peter.crowther@networkinference.com, drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
> 
> > > From: Drew McDermott [mailto:drew.mcdermott@yale.edu]
> > > Stop the presses!  There's an rdf:parseType Quote??
> >
> > No such luck!  See Sandro's email at:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001May/0218.html
> >
> > [Sandro]
> > "The problem is that parseType="Quote" is something Tim made up for
> > contexts, as far as I know.  Nothing can parse that RDF.  So that is
> > broken.   Thus my version...."

There are a few pieces of software that can parse that RDF;
it's not broken...

> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001May/0303.html

rdf:parseType is an extension mechanism... the RDF 1.0
spec says that rdf:parseType="log:quote" (just like
rdf:parseType="daml:collection") may be treated
like rdf:parseType="literal"; i.e. "the value
of this property is a blob of un-interpreted XML".

So if you use this extension mechanism, not all
the RDF tools will grok; but (a) they shouldn't
fall over; it's clear where the end of the
extended-syntax section is, and (b) if they don't grok the
semantics of the terms (log:implies,
daml:first/daml:rest/daml:nil)
anyway, there's no harm in using a syntactic
extension.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 12:11:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:38 UTC