Jeremy: >> - If we have a non-empty list of supported datatypes I would like >> rdf:XMLLiteral in it. Ian: >You amaze me. Always happy to entertain! For the benefit of those who weren't add the editors' meeting: - this was probably the most contentious part of the day - I review some of my arguments 1) Given a canonicalizing RDF/XML parser (and these exist) then implementing the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype requires a string compare (and nothing more). 2) There is significant benefit in permitting interoperability between OWL and other W3C technologies based on XML. A class of use cases depends on data being entered at one point, either as an XML document, or as XHTML; then going through two or more paths to an OWL system. Along one path the document is read in and written out again in accordance with XML conventions - which may change stuff not in the infoset but should leave, for instance, significant whitespace unchanged. OWL should do its best to permit full interoperation in such a scenario. Part (1) seemed to be the more contentious of these assertions; with many people doubting that canonicalization was easy to implement or could be completed handed off to the parser. JeremyReceived on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 10:51:18 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:04:59 GMT