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

Re: Personal Straw Poll about XMLLiteral

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:30:17 -0400
Message-ID: <a25ac1f0909140930r415e2a23g67771bc9c7ff234b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> 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?

We use the Jena parser, so yes.

> 2) Does your NTriples/Turtle/other alt-syntax parser canonical
> rdf:XMLLiterals?

No.

> 3) Do you maintain the original syntax of your XMLLiterals, or only retain
> the canonicalized form?

Once we get it from the parser, we keep it as it was given to us. We
don't process XMLLiterals, and we only canonicalize data types that we
want to process.

> 4) Would you object to changing the lexical space of rdf:XMLLiteral to
> include non-canonicalized wellformed XML?

It wouldn't affect us, unless we started processing XML. In that case,
I can say that storing non-canonical forms is undesirable.

> 5) Would you object to changing the RDF/XML parsing behavior to not
> canonicalize?

This merits a similar response to 4.

> 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?

No and no.

Regards,
Paul Gearon
Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 16:30:53 GMT

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