W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Proposed NTriples changes for literal notation

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:29:33 +0000
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <12575.1015856973@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> (Another resend - I've had some problems)
<snip/>
> we still have to decide that, ....
> 
> Dave:
> >   xml("<b>foo</b>")              XML content, no language
> what about xml("<b >foo</b>") is this:
> a) not legal ntriple
> b) legal but different from xml("<b>foo</b>") (and not representable in
> RDF/XML?)
> c) legal and the same as xml("<b>foo</b>")

As you know, NTriples doesn't define equality, it is a syntax for the
Model Theory to use to do so.  So: the Q is, how should the MT define
equality on these?

> Personally I prefer (c), but I think it is better for the group to not make
> this decision until after we have completed the xml literal issues.

Can't be (a) since the "" content is just a sequence of characters.
(b) and (c) cannot be distinguished; it is a legal sequence of
ntriple characters.

> For our test cases I think we can choose appropriate canonical strings, so
> this needn't slow us down at all.

Exactly

Dave
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 09:29:36 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:15 EDT