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

Re: XML literals poll

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:08:37 +0000
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E3470A59-F778-4106-B8AE-2DE7C8394C6D@garlik.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On 2011-11-21, at 19:32, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Below are six questions on XML literals. Please help the WG get a feeling for the general opinion within the group by answering the questions. Answers in the usual +1/0/-1 style are appropriate.
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> Q1. Should the specs define a way to compare XML literals based on value?

No.

> Q2. Should the specs say that RDF implementations MUST support value-based comparison?

No.

> Q3. Should the *lexical* space be in canonical form?

No.

> Q4. Should *invalid XML* be allowed in the lexical space?

Probably not.

[Though I doubt many RDF systems will refuse to store "1.0"^^xsd:integer for example, so it may be tilting at windmills]

> Q5. Should the specs say that RDF/XML parsers MUST canonicalize when handling parseType="literal"?

Maybe. MAY/SHOULD would be fine.

> Q6. Should it be required that producers of XML literals in concrete syntaxes (Turtle, N-Triples, other parseTypes in RDF/XML) canonicalize the literals themselves?

No.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:09:10 GMT

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