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

RE: Proposal to close reagle-01 reagle-02

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:36:59 +0200
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Patrick.Stickler" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> > (but a short note clarifying no canonicalization for RDF/XML
> > is required would be enough to satisfy me ;-)
> <pause for Jeremy to write it> :)

Hardly ... it is there in the implementation note in concepts from the

  add implementation note at end of abstract syntax section (old 6, new 5)

<a name="implementation-note"> </a>
This section describes an *abstract* syntax which describes
equality of literals and equivalence of graphs. This is the
syntax over which the formal semantics are defined.
Implementations are free to represent literals and RDF graphs in
any other equivalent form.  As an example:
literals with datatype <tt>rdf:XMLLiteral</tt>s can be represented
in a non-canonical
format, and canonicalization performed during the comparison between two
such literals. In both this example, and in the example
<a href="#lang-implementation-note">above</a>
the comparisons may be
being performed either between syntactic structures or
between their denotations in the domain of discourse.
Implementations that do not require such comparisons can
hence be optimized.

There is also a sentence in syntax that draws parser writers attention to

This specification permits any
<a href="rdf-concepts#implementation-note">representation</a>
of an RDF Graph (see [RDF Concepts]); in particular, it
does not require the use of N-Triples.

Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 07:36:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC