W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: XMLLiteral

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:09:35 -0600
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <1045174175.8906.108.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 13:57, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> PROPOSAL: rdf:XMLLiteral is a builtin datatype in OWL Lite contingent on a 
> satisfactory response from RDF Core WG on the following comment.
> 
> Draft msg to www-rdf-comments
> =====================
> This is a message from the WebOnt WG to RDF Core WG concerning
> the Last Call design of rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:parseType="Literal".
> 
> For the full integration of this feature of RDF into OWL we require

s/require/request/, please.

As I pointed out in the telcon: we could change our notion of
cardinality to accomodate some equivalence classes in the value
space of datatypes.

>  that the 
> denotation in the domain of discourse be fully defined by the source RDF/XML 
> file. Please remove sufficient implementation variability to ensure that this 
> is the case.
> 
> An example fix would be to require an RDF/XML parser to use a specific 
> canonicalization on input.
> 
> We have resolved that rdf:XMLLiteral is a builtin datatype in OWL Lite, OWL DL 
> and OWL Full contingent on a satisfactory response from RDF Core WG on this 
> comment.
> 
> ==========
> 
> Note to WebOnt - the phrasing leaves open that RDFCore stick with the aspect 
> of the current design in which the parser is *not* required to canonicalize 
> but is required to ensure that (later) canonicalization is possible.
> With this design an OWL implementation would need to either:
> - use a canonicalizing parser (a competitive market - all are free as far as I 
> know)
> - use any RDF/XML parser and a separate canonicalizing component.
> Hence a different example fix would be to change all the documents to only 
> ever use Exclusive Canonicalization with comments and with no special 
> namespaces.
> The initial motivation for this separation in the design was a desire to not 
> alienate parser writers who did not need canonicalization because they were 
> only doing some easier metadata processing.
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 17:09:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:57 GMT