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

Re: N3 vs. XML (rdf:parseType)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:41:14 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010522163536.036f2b60@joy.songbird.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 11:11 AM 5/22/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>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.

Hmmm...  this may be the case, but absent a common understanding of the 
basic RDF semantics (e.g. "reification") I'm not sure that it's really 
helpful to be suggesting this kind of extension.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 12:48:47 UTC

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