- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 16:06:54 +0100
- To: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[...] > The DeRoo approach is to use quotation to > hide nonstandard extensions of RDF. That is, an RDF processor that > isn't in on the trick will see an uninterpreted string and leave it > alone; this is not MY approach, but the RDF 1.0 approach [[ The parseType attribute changes the interpretation of the element content. The parseType attribute should have one of the values 'Literal' or 'Resource'. The value is case-sensitive. The value 'Literal' specifies that the element content is to be treated as an RDF/XML literal; that is, the content must not be interpreted by an RDF processor. The value 'Resource' specifies that the element content must be treated as if it were the content of a Description element. Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by RDF. With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'. In all cases, the content of an element having a parseType attribute must be well-formed XML. The content of an element having a parseType="Resource" attribute must further match the production for the content of a Description element. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#grammar > while a processor that knows what "log:implies" means will > de-quote the string and interpret it as if it had never been quoted at > all. ^^^while a parser that has rdf:parseType="log:quote" capability treats the content as something like (truth-predicate quoted-thing) no? [...] > Ten years from now it will be very hard to explain to novices why > the quotes are where they are. no comment -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 28 May 2001 10:07:36 UTC