W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: ISSUE-13: a proposal for rdf:XMLLiteral

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:12:34 +0000
Cc: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E76DA097-CA4D-4DC2-8F26-8CE7F5E93E54@cyganiak.de>
To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
On 16 Nov 2011, at 17:39, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Here is my my proposal for rdf:XMLLiteral
> 1/ The datatype rdf:XMLLiteral is a sub-datatype of xsd:string.
> 2/ The lexical space of rdf:XMLLiteral is the set of finite-length
> sequences of characters.

We should say at least that the lexical space is the set of well-formed XML document fragment. There isn't really any reason not to.

> 3/ The value space of rdf:XMLLiteral is the set of finite-length
> sequences of characters.
> 4/ The lexical to value mapping for rdf:XMLLiteral is the identity
> mapping. 

This is attractively simple.

I don't really know the use cases for comparing XML literals. If there are any, then it would be nice to cater for them in the specs, so in that case I'd prefer an L2V mapping that does C14N.

> 5/ RDF syntaxes may define a special syntax for rdf:XMLLiteral and the
> parse process for that RDF syntax may modify the surface form into some
> other lexical form.

(This is true even if we don't say it. RDF syntaxes can do whatever they like as long as they turn character sequences into RDF graphs and back.)

> 6a/ In RDF/XML, parseType literal is one of these special syntaxes and
> the modification produces the canonical form.

+1, as this matches the current behaviour of the spec, and the less we change about RDF/XML the better.

Best,
Richard



> 6b/ In RDF/XML, parseType literal is one of these special syntaxes and
> the modification does not change the canonical form.
> 
> 
> I prefer 6a.
> 
> 
> peter
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 21:13:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT