- From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:50:09 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 14 Sep 2009, at 12:36, Bijan Parsia wrote: > We have a lot of triplestore folks in the group. While unscientific, > it would at least give some idea of the feasibility of "fixing" > XMLLiteral. > > So, > > 1) Does your RDF/XML parser canonicalize rdf:XMLLiterals? > 2) Does your NTriples/Turtle/other alt-syntax parser canonical > rdf:XMLLiterals? > 3) Do you maintain the original syntax of your XMLLiterals, or only > retain the canonicalized form? > 4) Would you object to changing the lexical space of rdf:XMLLiteral > to include non-canonicalized wellformed XML? > 5) Would you object to changing the RDF/XML parsing behavior to not > canonicalize? > > The user version includes: > > 6) Would any of your applications break if the lexical space of > XMLLiteral were widened? No > 7) Would any of your applications break if the parsing of RDF/XML > didn't canonicalize? No Best, Alex. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > -- Dr. Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 11:50:55 UTC