Michael,
Ivan is right that this really, really *isn't* part of the problem. When RDF refers to 'XML', it means external general parsed entities. Please look at this: <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-content> You'll see that we're dealing with smaller sub-components than full well-formed documents. If your view was correct then the comment in 'RDF concepts' about something potentially having a datatype of _both_ rdf:XMLLiteral *and* xsd:string would be non-sensical. I tried to explain this in a great deal of detail in my previous emails, and apologise if it wasn't clear, but I would appreciate it if any disagreements or requests for clarity were focused on those emails; at the moment my posts seem to be being 'referred to' without actually being 'referred to'. NOTE: I should just say that the key document for us is RDF concepts, and *not* the syntax of RDF/XML. Regards, Mark On 16/02/07, Hausenblas, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ivan, > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Syntax-XML-literals <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Syntax-XML-literals> > > includes an example which has the same characteristics: no 'top level' xml element. Without being disrespectful and assuming that you have your SW activity lead hat off :) I'd like to ask you to which example you are referring - the only one I can find in section 2.8 of [1] reads as follows: <?xml version="1.0"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; xmlns:ex="http://example.org/stuff/1.0/";> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/item01";> <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal" xmlns:a="http://example.org/a#";> <a:Box required="true"> <a:widget size="10" /> <a:grommit id="23" /> </a:Box> </ex:prop> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> with <a:Box ...> being the 'top level element' in the resulting object of type rdf:XMLLiteral, giving the triple [2]: <http://example.org/item01> <http://example.org/stuff/1.0/prop> "<a:Box xmlns:a=\"http://example.org/a#\"; required=\"true\">\n <a:widget size=\"10\"></a:widget>\n <a:grommit id=\"23\"></a:grommit></a:Box>\n "^^<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> . which is what I would expect ... The rational behind my original question was to figure out what subset of RDF we are going to support. This was due to the fact that we have a pending action regarding this issue (cf. [3]). > Bottom line: I do not think *that* is the problem. Well - it is always either part of the problem or part of the solution ;) Cheers, Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/example09.nt [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/Overview.html#sec4 ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hausenblas, MSc. Institute of Information Systems & Information Management JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA ----------------------------------------------------------
-- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
