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

Re: weekly call for agenda items

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:44:11 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b18ba01ba8f78c7@[10.0.100.86]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>pat hayes wrote:
>
>>
>>>This is the usual weekly call for agenda items for this weeks 
>>>telecon.  On my list of possibles I have:
>>>
>>>   o approve datatype test cases
>>>   o issues arising after publication - eds - are there any you 
>>>need to discuss
>>>   o the last deliverable
>>
>>
>>What is the value space of rdf:XMLLiteral?
>
>
>I defined it as the set of canonical XML documents with rdf-wrapper 
>as the root tag.

Yeh, and I don't know what those are, or how the use of "canonical 
document" differs from saying that this is the string in the XML 
literal itself. We should define exactly what the lexical space, 
value space and L2V mappings are. Particularly since this will now be 
done first, it ought to be a model for all the other datatyping.

>Perhaps there is a slight lack of clarity in that I am talking about 
>Platonic documents rather than actual documents. The "canonical" 
>word sort of makes that an angels on pinhead discussion rather than 
>one with any real content.

Well, make it more concrete. The value space consists of XML 
thingies. Can there be cases of two different XML literal strings 
denoting the same one of those thingies? That is, are there any cases 
that ought to trigger the inference rule rdfD-2 for XMLLiteral? 
(Assume there are no lang tags.) If not, I propose that we just say 
that the value space is the same as the lexical space.  But if there 
are any rdf:XMLLiteral-datatyping entailments then I ought to say 
what they are and incorporate them into rdf-entailment.

If there are lang tags, does having different lang tags guarantee 
that the canonical XML docs are distinct, or can there be cases where 
the lang tags dissolve into nothing and leave the docs identical? If 
the former, then the MT can treat XMLLiterals just like plain 
literals but with an XML syntax check added, which would be very nice 
and easy.

>I don't know whether anyone would care to argue whether a document 
>is or is not an XSD string.

Lets agree that they are not, as far as we are concerned. After all, 
literal strings are not XSD strings either. Saying what XSD-anything 
is, is up to XMLS to do, not our job.

>I would think not ... an xsd:string is a sequence of unicode code 
>points, whereas a document is a sequence of bytes (a canonical XML 
>document is a sequence of bytes in the UTF-8 charcater encoding).

Nah, a "canonical" doc is in some Platonic doc space, on an entirely 
higher plane than such earthly things as bytes and UTF-8.

>
>>Can one create a synonym for rdf:XMLLiteral, and if so does it 
>>invoke the same datatyping rules??
>>
>
>
>The question is ...
>
>rdf:XMLLiteral owl:sameIndividualAs <eg:dt> .
>_:a <eg:a> "a"^^<eg:dt> .
>
>hmmmm ....
>
>which is easier? we could prohibit it.

On reflection, lets just ignore it. Let Webont worry about that.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 18:44:16 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:07 EDT