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

Re: Personal Straw Poll about XMLLiteral

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:50:09 +0100
Cc: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F0A9AE7C-0693-402B-89B5-F3A3CFEEB8FD@deri.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On 14 Sep 2009, at 12:36, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 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?
No

> 7) Would any of your applications break if the parsing of RDF/XML  
> didn't canonicalize?
No

Best,

Alex.

>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 11:50:55 GMT

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