W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: 2001-09-07#5 - literal problem

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:44:46 +0100
Message-ID: <3BA5C60E.50214594@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


I thought I would summarise where I had understood we had got to during
the teleconference - although noting no decisions were made.


We should consider pair ( Unicode-String, URI ) as generalisation of (
Unicode-String, lang ).

There was agreement with the treatment of equality proposed.

Desire to find wording that is consistent wioth current implementations
of rdf:parseType = "Literal" while suggesting canonicalisation as a good
idea.


----

The main points in the e-mail still outstanding are from Graham.

Graham:
> At the risk of stating the obvious, I'd like to distinguish:
> - a literal specified as an attribute value
> - a literal specified as XML element content conforming to #PCDATA
> - a literal specified as XML element content conforming to ANY, using 
> rdf:parseType="Literal".
> 
> In the first two cases, I think the resulting literal is a Unicode string 
> corresponding to exactly the content of the property element or attribute.

IMO, we should say this explicitly, and explicitly prohibit whitespace
trimming.


[ ... snip ... in the third case ... ]
Graham again:
> I see two possibilities:
> (a) for parseType="Literal", treat the literal as an infoset (not a Unicode 
> string) and define equality based on infoset equivalence, or
> (b) apply canonicalization to achieve an equivalent result on Unicode strings.

My reading of the WG was that there wasn't a lot of support for option
(a) and I am currently not seeing exploring it as part of the action 
2001-09-07#5. If the WG is unhappy with whatever Bill and I come up
with, we may wish to review that.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 05:40:14 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:44 EDT