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

Re: Was: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:26:08 +0000
Message-ID: <4D74DCF0.8020702@epimorphics.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Done.

BTW, Jeremy is the expert here.  I have used his work and code when 
writing RDF validation code.

	Andy

On 07/03/11 12:19, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Andy,
>
> 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.
>
> Thx
>
> Ivan
>
> 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 13:26:48 UTC

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