- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:11:00 +0000
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: public-cwm-bugs@w3.org
On 10/16/07, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > I suppose we could make it an option. > Note also though that cwm does datatype canonicalization as > well for example for 08 and 8. > Would you want that removed? No, I understand the utility of list canonicalisation now, but I'm worried about the possiblity of it making cwm incompatible with the RDF standards. As DanC noted on IRC, "you might be able to phrase some entailment test invoving rdf:first that cwm would fail because it forgot about axiomatic lists". The added *practical* pain is that it's a computational burden to canonicalise lists when parsing N3, so should it be such an ingrained part of the language? Perhaps a clearer demonstration is formula canonicalisation: for that you have to do graph isomorphism, an even bigger computational burden. Nobody is saying that all N3 processors must canonicalise, of course, I understand. But if I want to process non-canon N3, what can I test against? CWM is N3's only reference specification, so you can't really write a standalone N3 parser without the two kinds of canonicalisation. I'm therefore leaving this bug open until you produce a reference specification, or a non-canonicalised N3 test suite, or formally forbid non-canon N3, or... :-) -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 20:11:10 UTC