W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: pfps-04 (why the thread is germane to pfps-04)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 25 Jul 2003 14:00:31 +0100
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, i18n <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1059138030.2201.52.camel@dhcp-91-136.hpl.hp.com>

On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 12:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:


> Two XML literals are (now) equal in RDF precisely when their Exclusive
> XML Canonicalizations are the same octet sequence.
> However other answers are harder to determine.
> 1/ When is an XML literal equal to a plain RDF literal?  A plain RDF
> literal is a Unicode string (sequence of Unicode characters), so this
> question boils down to whether octets and Unicode characters are disjoint.
> I found it difficult to answer this question, because of hints in the
> exclusive canonicalization document that they are not.

I think we've established that UNICODE characters and octet sequences
are disjoint.  Martin, chair of the I18N group confirmed this in:

Whilst Martin does not like the RDFCore design, as currently specified
in the ed's drafts, XMLLiterals and plain literals are disjoint.

Pat has agreed to remove some misleading text, as noted in

> 2/ When is an XML literal equal to an XML Schema string? 

As currently defined, never.  xsd:string's are not octet sequences, see


Peter, how are we doing on pfps-04.  Have we resolved your comment?

Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 09:03:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:21 UTC