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

Re: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:35:16 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030729003337.01ea7768@127.0.0.1>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, i18n <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>

At 17:20 28/07/03 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>(So, yes, 1 and 2 are two different things.  I believe this to be a 
>>necessary distinction...)
>
>Their representations are different. But why do their denotations
>have to be different?

Because, ultimately, you need to be able to distinguish somehow between '<' 
for markup and '<' uninterpreted.  (This is predicated on the current 
design that plain literals are self-denoting strings -- the only way I can 
see to make all this work is that the abstract syntax representation 
maintains a distinction between character data and markup data.)

>>Within this scheme, I assert there is *no way* to require that XML 
>>interpretation of these characters be applied without marking the 
>>distinction, which is what the XML datatype provides.
>
>But note that we are not speaking about changing the interpretation
>of something by changing from plain literal to XML literal, we are
>speaking about two different representations ((1) and (2)) that
>could/should denote the same string of characters.

I thought about that, but within the current scheme couldn't see any way to 
make it work, for the reason noted above.

I don't think I've anything more constructive to add at this stage, and 
should back off.  Maybe someone else can see a way past the block that I 
perceive?

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 19:43:57 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:51 EDT