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

RE: 2001-09-07#5 Literals

From: Bill de hOra <bdehora@interx.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:35:12 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c1467f$4e259000$01000001@MITCHUM>


> From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:aswartz@upclink.com] 
>
> While we do need to work on getting definitions straight, the comment:
> 
> > RDF processors SHOULD deal with equality and normalisation
> > of Literals only, and SHOULD NOT be expected to make or find such
> > equivalences.
> 
> seems like it applies more to RDF parser than RDF processors.

Sure, but we could argue fruitlessly on delineating between processors,
serializers, parsers and applications and so forth. The term used in the
M&S is usually 'processor. Processors above means things that do stuff
with the XML syntax: go figure. Having to say things like this is why I
wanted a common sense definition of an rdf processor put into a
glossary, without stipulating a processing layer cake. Saying parser is
fine.



> >    ASIDE to rdfcore-wg: Does the example work for US & Asian
> >    readers?
> >    I note that "some context" is approx. on a European telephone.
> >    (I'm guessing that + does not expand as 00 in Asia!)
> 
> I figured it out from past experience, but a comment explaining 
> that these literals are meant to represent European telephone 
> numbers might be in order.

That was intentional, to emphasize a point: if human readers can't
always see equivalences in literals without extra info, machines haven't
a chance. That's probably too zen for a spec. Adding a comment would be
fine.
 
regards,
Bill
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 07:36:50 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:50 EDT