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

RE: Change in definition of RDF literals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:44:52 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90E28@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <duerst@w3.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 22 May, 2003 13:16
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); duerst@w3.org; jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Change in definition of RDF literals
> 
> 
> At 11:25 22/05/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> >(a) there can be entailments
> >that hold for XML literals due to canonicalization that do not
> >hold for plain literals and
> 
> Since our recent decision to handle canonicalization in the 
> parser [1][2], 
> I don't think it's correct to say that C14N has any impact on 
> entailment 
> relationships between RDF graphs.

It doesn't for XML literals. But if we treat plain literals
as XML literals, then some entailments that do not hold for
plain literals will then hold, since if the plain literals
are not canonicalized, they are not equal, but if they are
canonicalized (being treated as XML) then they could be.

Martin had suggested that plain literals and XML literals
could be treated the same. I was simply pointing out that,
while we *could* do that, I think most users would not be
very happy with such a solution.

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 06:45:31 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:32 EDT