[oslc-core] Need for an XML literal value type

[Arthur Ryman]

Steve,

I you need CDATA, you'd still use XML literal since CDATA is valid XML.

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE


Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management

IBM Software, Rational

Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063
Twitter | Facebook | YouTube







From:
Steve K Speicher <sspeiche at us.ibm.com>
To:
oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:
03/18/2010 11:15 AM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] Need for an XML literal value type
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Dave <snoopdave at gmail.com> wrote on 03/18/2010 09:24:23 AM: 

> 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?
> 

RDF/XML allows for XML Literals as stated in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-rdf-XMLLiteral 
so the RDF/XML is still valid, if rdf:parseType="Literal" 

So I would believe that we are using XML Literals as intended. 

I think there will also be cases where we'd want CDATA property value 
types, for example HTML content(non-XML based).  Though I'm not exactly 
sure how that would be specified, other than using literal XML. 

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net