W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Was: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:19:55 +0100
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <84612ACA-838D-41A6-B292-A467615EF89A@w3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

I know you had to dive into this issue more often than I did, would you mind creating an issue to describe problems more precisely?

I know we had major discussions in the RDFa WG at a time as for what exactly a generated XML Literal should look like, does it have to be a canonical XML version or not, things like that.

It may only need some explanations, though.



On Mar 7, 2011, at 11:16 , Andy Seaborne wrote:

> On 07/03/11 05:51, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Andy,
>> I was actually wondering whether there should not be a cleanup
>> action/issue on XML Literals, namely their equality rules. There is a
>> mess in my mind compared to different canonicalization algorithms,
>> and I also wonder whether the references are still o.k. I know you
>> have dived into this much more than I did...
>> Ivan
> Yes - worth recording as a cleanup item.  I've had to dive in to answer user questions (a recent one being "why does this GML literal not pass validation" - answer: attributes not in sorted order).
> Whether it makes the cutline due to resourcing is then separate.
> 	Andy

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 12:18:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC