- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:06:32 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Patrick Stickler said: > Likewise, the following two are synonymous > > <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><a>blah</a></foo:prop> > <ex:prop rdf:datatype="&rdfs;XMLLiteral" > rdf:parseType="Literal"><a>blah</a></foo:prop> Er, no. The latter is illegal syntax. The only place the rdf:datatype attribute is allowed is on a (non-empty) literal property element: http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#literalPropertyElt > The parse type and datatype are not the same, though if not > otherwise specified, an XML literal "defaults" to rdfs:XMLLiteral, > so in the second case above the rdf:datatype attribute is > redundant and unnecessary. > > Yet, per Jonathan's inquiry, we could/should support the > arbitrary typing of XML literals by complex types. E.g. > > <ex:prop rdf:datatype="&xhtml;title" > rdf:parseType="Literal"><title>blah</title></foo:prop> > > or, alternately, and synonymously > > <ex:prop rdf:datatype="&xhtml;title"><title>blah</title></foo:prop> I think I addressed this in earlier messages: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0447.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0448.html as far as I understand it, we're not giving XML literals (parseType="Literal") an additional datatype URI, the datatype URI is fixed to the URI of rdfs:XMLLiteral Dave
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 07:06:42 UTC