Re: Denotation of XMLLiterals: poll

Whatever solution we choose, it should provide enough information
to test equality of values.

Option A does not do that. The argument that integers are thus
vaguely defined is bogus, in that integers are defined sufficiently
well to test for equality, among other things. Option A is quite
a bit more vague than the definition of integers.

Option B seems the most promising. I'd like to hear
a summary of the concerns with this. I don't recall seeing anything
on the WG list.

Option C is completely unnacceptable to me. It again introduces
a unique treatment for the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype, among other
shortcomings that I've detailed before and won't repeat here.

If none of the above seem to work, then there is the fourth
option which is to say that XML literals are self denoting,
being canonicalized XML fragments, and those fragments are
comparible by character sequence, and may be mapped by XML
applications to other things, such as XML Infosets,
DOM trees, XPath nodesets, whatever. 

Patrick

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ext Brian McBride 
  To: rdf core 
  Sent: 06 August, 2003 14:29
  Subject: Denotation of XMLLiterals: poll



  It seems that there is some concern about XMLLiterals denoting octet 
  sequences.  As I understand things, RDFCore doesn't feel strongly that 
  the denotation MUST be octet sequences.  Pat has layed what we really 
  care about in:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0452.html

  I suggest we accept Pat's suggestion and reconsider the denotation of 
  XMLLiterals.  I have seen three suggestions, as I recall:

    A) be a bit vague about XMLLiterals really are - just define their 
  essential properties

    B) have them denote XPATH nodesets

    C) have them denote a pair (uri, lex form), where uri is the uri of 
  rdf:XMLLiteral.

  Concern has been expressed about A being to vague.  Others have 
  responded saying thats normal - integers are defined in terms of their 
  properties.

  Concern has been expressed that XPATH nodesets are too vague, we don't 
  really know that they are and are thus no better than A, but are in some 
  way worse.  Cannonicalization does define an equality relation on them

  I have heard a private concern expressed about C, that if we did that, 
  shouldn't we treat all datatypes that way.  Further, that this does 
  guarantee that there are no other ways of denoting the same pair with 
  another, posibly user defined datatype.

  How do we choose?  If you have a preference and rationale, it would be 
  good hear it.

  Brian