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

Re: weekly call for agenda items

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:39:37 +0200
Message-ID: <009501c29131$24f8b7e0$149316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 20 November, 2002 23:29
Subject: Re: weekly call for agenda items



> > 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.

I find this root tag a rather ugly hack that seems unnecessary, if we
take the value space to be the set of infosets, which would (magically)
include the specified xml:lang value at their root scope.

I really would like to see the root tag treatment go away. I think it
will confuse alot of folks and is rather kludgy.

Also, I think more folks will be able to relate to an infoset rather
than a canonical serialization.

Of course, I don't myself think that an xml:lang attribute in an
RDF/XML instance should infect an XML Literal as the literal is not
part of the RDF language and is only there as XML as a convenience
but not for any semantic reason, but...

(i.e. XML literals should be treated as other literals where the
lang tag, if present, does not affect the denotation of the literal)

--

Not wanting to cause delay this late in the process, but I think we
really need to revisit this a bit...

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 02:39:41 EST

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