One glitch with this is that you cannot put xml, as a string, in an
RDF/XML inner text.
that's what parseType="Literal" is for.
eg
<dc:title><b>This is a title</b></dc:title>
is not valid in RDF/XML.
parseType literal yields a typed RDF literal of rdf:datatype
rdf:XMLLiteral, in the RDF type model. I suppose you can always escape
xml into a string but this is mostly inconvenient and unnecessary.
i agree that these could be separate resources with the appropriate
media-type, and in some cases this is preferred. in the case of RM v1, we
chose to have inlined data because it felt natural; separate resources
complicates the api for resource creation should mandatory xhtml values
have to be created before the requirement referencing that value can be
created.
best wishes,
-ian
[email protected] (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB)
Chief Software Architect, Requirements Definition and Management
IBM Rational
From:
Dave <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Date:
18/03/2010 13:24
Subject:
[oslc-core] Need for an XML literal value type
Sent by:
[email protected]
I'm still a little concerned about adding XML literal as a value type
and I'm trying to understand the pros and cons. The only justification
that we have so far for adding an XML literal value is for storing
XHTML data, which we need for rich text, but we can easily store XHTML
data as a string.
What specifically do we gain by putting XHTML content in-line in our
RDF/XML and Atom XML representations?
And conversely, what do we lose by not doing so?
Also, does putting XHTML content in-line in RDF/XML result in valid
RDF/XML?
Thanks,
- Dave
_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
[email protected]
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
