W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RE: SEM: parseType="daml:list" doesn't cut it

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:10:07 -0000
To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCEDHCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
(I am following Jim's classification of this under SEM - frankly I don't
know where it lies).

parseType="Literal" comes from RDF Model & Syntax.
I have recently posted the following to RDF Core summarizing what it says in
M&S and the known problems with it:


This was intended for the XML Canonicalization (C14N) people.

It also identifies my understanding of the minimum that the RDF Core WG will
do to resolve some of the issues (i.e. define equality).

The parseType="foobar" was intended by M&S as an extensibility mechanism.

typically goes both ways and says that the value must be either "Resource"
or "Literal" and then says what an RDF processor should do with other
The current RDF Core WG disposition is that this was a mistake, and that
further use of this mechanism will be discouraged.

The DAML group treated this as a general purpose mechanism and define
rdf:parseType="daml:collection" ....


This has not been blessed by any W3C group and is not conformant with M&S.
It does happen on the W3C RDF validator site because I wrote the code!

IMO, a possible action of this group would be to bless daml:collection or to
ask RDF Core to do so.


> >1: was rdf:parseType="daml:collection" a good idea? Does it need
> blessing?
> >
> >2: how does rdf:parseType="Literal" interact with RDF and OWL?
> >
> >3: is rdf:parseType="foobar" a sensible extensibility mechanism which OWL
> >can live with.
> Jeremy/Jonathan (et al) -
>   For the sake of the WebOnt Wkg Group, many of whom haven't been as
> involved in RDF development as you, could you provide some pointers
> to things like rdf:parsetype and etc, and help us understand which is
> in RDF as accepted by the W3C (original rec), which are newer things
> under consideration by RDF Core, etc.  I'm not really aiming this at
> the message above, but generally as this layering and RDF stuff goes
> forward, it is hard for some of us to follow -
>   thanks
>   JH
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 12:41:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:28 UTC