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

Re: pfps-06

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:59:20 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001a10bb4498ec3605@[10.0.100.23]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: Brian_McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Subject: pfps-06
>Date: 21 Jul 2003 14:28:58 +0100
>
>>
>>
>>  Peter,
>>
>>  with reference to your comment recorded as
>>
>>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-06
>>
>>  the RDFCore WG has resolved to accept this comment.
>>
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0236.html
>>
>>  As you know, there have been extensive modifications to the description of
>>  the datatyping semantics since your comment was written
>>
>>  The current editor's draft, which is stable enough to review,
>>
>>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
>>
>>  now contains an account of datatyping and XML literals which treats
>>  XML literals uniformly with other typed literals and is more explicit
>>  about the exact status of LV.
>>
>>  Please reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org,
>>  indicating whether this response adequately addresses your comment.
>>
>>  Brian
>
>The document is internally inconsistent on the treatment of XML Literals.
>
>The change list in the document Semantics says that XML literals ``are now
>required to be in canonical form and therefore to denote their own literal
>string.''  This appears to mean that XML literals are just a subset of
>character strings.  This is completely counter to what is said in RDF
>Concepts, at least the version pointed to from the document.

Peter, please be so good as to review the document.itself, not the 
change list, which is not worded carefully and is intended only to be 
a guide to the changes made in the document. If you would prefer, I 
could provide you with a copy with the change list deleted.

Pat

>However, Section 3 of the document Semantics has no mention of the fact
>that XML literals denote themselves.  It also says that is ``is
>deliberately agnostic as to whether or not XML data is considered to be
>identical to a character string'', which is in direct contradiction to the
>wording in the change list.
>
>So, I do not feel that my concerns in this area have been adequately
>addressed.
>
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wednesday, 23 July 2003 15:59:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:46 EDT