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

Re: pfps-04 [RDF entailment rules not yet complete]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 31 Jul 2003 17:05:29 +0100
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Message-Id: <1059667527.6604.19.camel@dhcp-91-3.hpl.hp.com>

On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 16:36, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

> > > 
> > > I am unconvinced.  Just what does ``correspond'' mean here - does it mean
> > > ``are'' or does it mean ``resulting in ... when canonicalized''? 
> > 
> > Neither.  It means that if you encode the string using UTF-8 you get 
> > cannonicalized XML.  I'll check this on the WG list.
> 
> Huh?   Where does this meaning come from?

Right now, my head, in that I think that's what its supposed to say, but
I'm checking.  If I'm right looks like we need to clarify the text.  If
you are right, then no change will be needed.

[...]

> I also note that the lexical space of XML literals in RDF Concepts
> (Editors' Draft 28 July 2003) has the condition ``when embedded between an
> arbitrary XML start tag and an end tag form a document conforming to XML
> Namespaces'' and the value space has the condition that ``when embedded
> within an arbitrary XML start tag and an end tag form a document conforming
> to XML Namespaces''.  This indicates that the lexical space and the value
> space intersect.  Further the productions in XML Namespaces ground out
> (following pointers to Appendix B of Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0
> (Second Edition)) at Unicode characters indicating that the lexical space
> and the value space consists of Unicode strings.  This contradicts the Note
> that the value space consists of UTF-8 octet sequences.

Yup - I don't think we can include aribtritary sequences of octets in an
XML document.


[...]

> > > I also note that if the first meaning is indeed correct, then much of the
> > > treatment of XML literals in RDF Semantics needs to be changed.
> > 
> > Oops - please can you say why.
> 
> If the first meaning is correct, then the denotation of a^^rdf:XMLLiteral,
> for a in the lexical space of rdf:XMLLiteral, would be a, making much of
> the treatment of XML literals in RDF Semantics useless and misleading.

That is not the intent.  a is a sequence of characters. 
a^^rdf:XMLLiteral denotes a sequence of octets.  Octets and characters
are disjoint.

[...]

> PS: It is aggravating that the pointers in RDF Semantics are not correct,
> making me over and over hunt for the correct point in RDF Concepts.

I can understand that.  Is the problem that they are absolute links to
the published version rather than the ed's drafts?

Brian
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 12:14:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT