- 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 resolution: <<<< add implementation note at end of abstract syntax section (old 6, new 5) [[ <a name="implementation-note"> </a> IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: 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: by [[ 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. ]] Jeremy
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 07:36:56 UTC