- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:31:42 +0100
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> I think we can fairly safely assume that RDF implementations can > determine > character-level equivalence between XML literals. But it will be > problematic for some applications (think: DPH) if the ability to > determine > deeper levels of equivalence is required. I'm not sure why we *need* any > deeper level than character equivalence. I think this falls into > the same > category as being able to detect entailments: some true facts may be > overlooked, but we don't end up concluding falsehoods. I am feeling happier with XML Literals now they are a datatype. Graham's discussion above shows that failing to do canonicalization is merely one of the many forms of incomplete reasoning that a cheap-and-cheerful rdf implementation will exhibit. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:39:00 UTC