- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:44:11 +0000
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Looks OK to me. I agree with adding the comment on whitespace because it makes the data more robust across implementations that do and do not support either of xsd:hexBinary xsd:base64Binary D-entailment. As potentially significant sized binary blobs, the impact of supporting them is a bit different to, say, dates. Andy On 04/12/11 17:01, Birte Glimm wrote: > On 3 December 2011 20:06, Steve Harris<steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote: >> That looks ok to me. >> >> I would be happier though if there was some encouragement for Henry's document to use the canonical form, rather than deliberately introducing extra whitespace, thereby requiring a (presumably) uncommon feature from the SPARQL systems. > > > I now added: > As you suggest, it would also be possible to use SPARQL endpoints that > do not support D-entailment, provided that users& applications use > only use canonical forms of literals, e.g., without whitespace. > > Birte >> - Steve >> >> On 3 Dec 2011, at 18:50, Birte Glimm wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I drafted a coment response for Hensy Story's comment: >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:HSt-1 >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Birte >>> >>> -- >>> Jun. Prof. Dr. Birte Glimm Tel.: +49 731 50 24125 >>> Inst. of Artificial Intelligence Secr: +49 731 50 24258 >>> University of Ulm Fax: +49 731 50 24188 >>> D-89069 Ulm birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de >>> Germany >>> >> >> -- >> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited >> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK >> +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ >> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 >> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD >> > > >
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2011 19:44:44 UTC