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

Re: Denotation of XMLLiterals: poll

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:13:32 +0100
Message-ID: <3F30FEFC.9050306@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Patrick Stickler wrote:
> Whatever solution we choose, it should provide enough information
> to test equality of values.
> Option A does not do that.

Sorry, if I've not been clear.  With option A, I had in mind something 
close to what Pat suggested.  This includes the notion that the mapping 
from the lex space to the value space of xml literals is 1:1.

Thus it is possible to test whether xml literal values are equal by 
comparing their lexical forms.


> 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.

Thanks for being brief Patrick, but in this case I could do with a 
reminder.  I have had a search and didn't find the post(s) you refer to. 
  Could you provide a link?

> 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.

The trouble with that seems to be that it fails to distinguish between 
markup and text, e.g.

   _:a eg:prop "&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;" .

rdf entails

   _:a eg:prop "<br></br>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral .

I think there is general agreement that is a bad thing.
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 09:17:53 UTC

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