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

Re: Literals: language and xml (was: Comments on new datatyping document, part 1)

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:58:33 +0300
Message-ID: <011a01c258b9$0186a2f0$294516ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


I see your point. 

And for that matter, I could happily see XML literals being
datatyped, with complex types, leaving it up to the semantics
of the complex datatype to specify the nature of its value
space (what's actually in there) and the L2V mapping.

I've been thinking along the lines that the value space for
a complex datatype would be the set of valid infosets which
conform to the content model of the complex type, and the
L2V mapping being the mapping from XML serializations of those
infosets to the infosets themselves.

But whether we say anything along those lines or not, I would
be happy removing the current restriction (presumed, though
not explicitly stated) in Part 1 to allow explicitly datatyped
XML literals.

Thus, this would remove the odd treatment of the XML flag,
and simply mean that only the unicode string portion of the
literal, regardless of the other two components, participates
in datatyping.

Eh?

Patrick

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 50) 483 9453, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 10 September, 2002 14:07
Subject: Literals: language and xml (was: Comments on new datatyping document, part 1)


> Well, I think this is fine if that's what the WG agrees on, though it seems 
> a little counter-intuitive to me, for two reasons:
> 
> - it means that the internal structure of literal forms is not quite opaque 
> to datatyping:  the "xml" flag has an effect.
> 
> - the language tag and xml flag are treated differently for the purposes of 
> datatyping.
> 
> As I said, I don't have a deep problem with either of these even if I do 
> have a mild dislike.  But I guess we should be clear about what we're deciding.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> At 12:21 PM 9/10/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > > For example consider whether:
> > >    < <xsd:integer>"25"   , 25 >
> > >    < <xsd:integer>"25"-en, 25 >
> > > are distinct members of a datatype mapping.  Similarly, are the following
> > > distinct?
> > >    < <xsd:integer>"25"   , 25 >
> > >    < <xsd:integer>xml"25", 25 >
> >
> >The XML flag and xml:lang code do not participate in any way
> >with datatyping semantics. They are invisible/ignored/discarded/whatever
> >when considering the L2V mapping. Only the unicode string portion is
> >relevant, and it is taken, alone, to represent a lexical form, a
> >member of the lexical space of the datatype.
> >
> >Also, Part 1 does not define any participation of XML literals in
> >datatyping, only non-XML literals.
> >
> >Thus, all of the following typed literal nodes denote the very
> >same value (ten):
> >
> >    <http://...#integer>"10"
> >    <http://...#integer>"10"-en
> >    <http://...#integer>"10"-fi
> >    <http://...#integer>"10"-sp
> >    <http://...#integer>"10"-en_UK
> >
> >etc.
> >
> >And the following are disallowed
> >
> >    <http://...#datatype>xml"LLL"
> >    <http://...#datatype>xml"LLL"-xx
> >    <http://...#datatype>xml"LLL"-xx_XX
> >
> >
> >XML literals are not datatyped (at least as far as Part 1 is
> >concerned. As an aside, I think they *could* be datatyped,
> >with complex datatypes, but that remains in Part 2 and is not
> >part of the recent concensus.
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 06:58:39 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:58 EDT