W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Another RDDL/RDF proposal

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:09:37 +0000
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6931.1037185777@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Patrick Stickler said:
> I've tried repeatedly to get this functionality into RDF datatyping,
> but for some reason or another, the WG does not seem persuaded that it
> is necessary at the moment.
> You present a very compelling use case for this, and fortunately, the
> pieces are all in place to support typed XML literals. It's mostly
> a matter of allowing them. They're not fundamentally different from
> literals of type rdfs:XMLLiteral.

I do find this a bit more compelling than the use-case presented by
Jonathan based on webont's postponed requirement for complex XSD
datatypes (If I recall it correctly).

The difference is going from a one special datatype for XML content
to a whole universe of them, thus requiring a new isXML flag, so that
in RDF syntaxes written in XML, the XML content can be rendered back
into elements and attributes.  This doesn't happen unless you know it
is XML.  If any datatype URI-reference could potentially be XML and
required to be written as such, you will need the isXML flag added to
all typed literals.

> I suggest you ask the RDF Core WG to open this issue.

I ask you don't since it requires an RDF model change (adding an
isXML flag to typed literals) as well as changing RDF/XML again.
You underestimate the impact of such "simple" changes.

Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 06:11:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:55 UTC