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 14:50:35 +0000
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <13018.1015858235@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> > 
> > Can't be (a) since the "" content is just a sequence of characters.
> 
> Oh, that's interesting. I had been assuming that it was well-balanced xml.

No, that's why I posted the proposed new productions to make it quite
clear:

  langString   ::= '"' string '"' ('-' language)

  xmlString    ::= 'xml' langString

and in the existing grammar at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#string

  string  ::=  character* with escapes as defined in section Strings

> So for you
> 
> xml"<"
> 
> is a plausible value. (Not representable in RDF/XML)?

Legal - yes, this changed NTriples doesn't care.  However: the
NTriples that are generated from RDF/XML will *not* generate such a
literal.

If we went with
  xmlString    ::= 'xml"' xmlExclusiveC14Nstring '"' ('-' language)

  xmlExclusiveC14Nstring ::= as defined by http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n

then there would be further requirements


> That's fine.
> If that's the case then:
> 
> > b) legal but different from xml("<b>foo</b>") (and not representable in
> > RDF/XML?)
> 
> looks like the attractive answer to my question.

It is an answer from my current defn :)

Dave
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 09:53:47 EST

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