W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Personal Straw Poll about XMLLiteral

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:36:29 +0100
Message-Id: <9932EDC5-B2EF-48D7-A7EF-EC05ADEC5524@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
We have a lot of triplestore folks in the group. While unscientific,  
it would at least give some idea of the feasibility of "fixing"  
XMLLiteral.

So,

1) Does your RDF/XML parser canonicalize rdf:XMLLiterals?
2) Does your NTriples/Turtle/other alt-syntax parser canonical  
rdf:XMLLiterals?
3) Do you maintain the original syntax of your XMLLiterals, or only  
retain the canonicalized form?
4) Would you object to changing the lexical space of rdf:XMLLiteral  
to include non-canonicalized wellformed XML?
5) Would you object to changing the RDF/XML parsing behavior to not  
canonicalize?

The user version includes:

6) Would any of your applications break if the lexical space of  
XMLLiteral were widened?
7) Would any of your applications break if the parsing of RDF/XML  
didn't canonicalize?

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 11:31:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:08:28 GMT