Hausenblas, Michael 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 :)
Goes without saying! For this and all my discussions on the mailing list:-) > 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> . > Oops, you are right. This is not a good example. However, the main comment of my previous mail holds, I think (and, as Mark put it, the really important reference is the formal rdf spec and not rdf/xml): "XML values can be thought of as the [XML-INFOSET] or the [XPATH] *nodeset* (my emphasis, IH) corresponding to the lexical form, with an appropriate equality function." Ie, it is a set of XML nodes. Ivan > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------- -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
