W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: [DTB] summary of editorial issues (completes ACTION-552)

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:05:13 +0200
Message-ID: <48B56D29.8090404@inf.unibz.it>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

>>>> 14) Editor's Note: Predicates for rdf:XMLLiteral such as at least
>>>> comparison predicates (equals, not-equals) are still under discussion in
>>>> the working group.
>>>> PROPOSED: introduce equals and not-equals for XMLLiteral which matches
>>>> modulo white-spaces in non-text content.
>>> Two XML literals are equal if their values (as defined in [1]) are the
>>> same and not-equal if their values are not the same. I cannot imagine
>>> any other meaningful definition for equality of XML literals.
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral
>> ok, that doesn't include white-space normalization or alike...
> If you want to have whitespace normalization, you should either use a
> different data type or introduce a function for this kind of

Actually, using a different data type might not be a bad idea.  I think
it was a mistake of the RDF working group to have a one-to-one
correspondence between the lexical and value space.  It would have been
better to map XML content in the lexical space to the corresponding XML
infoset, which is independent from the particular serialization.
Unfortunately, I realize this just now.  I guess it's too late to change
it in RIF.

Best, Jos

Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
  - Donald Foster
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 15:04:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:52 UTC