W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: xml literal lex space question

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:41:04 +0200
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4DC8A923.CD8B67A2-ONC1256D75.00603E89-C1256D75.006126AD@agfa.be>

Pat - I believe I fully agree with you on that 1:1 thing

In a similar sense, one could maybe argue that
" 2 "^^xsd:int is not having an illegal lexical value
but a non-canonical lexical value ;-)

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                      pat hayes                                                                                                         
                      <phayes@ihmc.us>          To:       Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>                                              
                      Sent by:                  cc:       w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org                                                         
                      w3c-rdfcore-wg-req        Subject:  Re: xml literal lex space question                                            
                      2003-08-01 06:53                                                                                                  

Regarding XML literals, I have one request to make to the WG, in its
deliberations on this topic. Speaking as the semantics editor, I
really do not give a damn what XML literal values are defined to
actually BE. What I do care about, a lot, is this:  whatever they are
defined to be, that the lexical-to-value mapping from the legal
lexical forms is precisely and unambiguously 1:1. We have already
canonicalized the lexical forms about as strongly as the combined
forces of XML and RDF are able to canonicalize them; the operational
point of doing this is so that an RDF engine can compare equality of
literal values by comparing identity of lexical form, and we don't
have to have special inference rules which substitute different but
co-referring XML forms one for another in all possible ways.  If we
lose this 1:1 nature of the mapping, then we might as well not have
bothered to have a canonicalized lexical form. SO please don't do
anything that runs a risk of losing that property. I do not know if
having lexical-to-value be UTF-8 encoding does so or not. I would
rather not have to know, to be honest.

IHMC         (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                                  (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501                                   (850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 13:41:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:07 UTC