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

Re: ISSUE-13: History of rdf:XMLLiteral

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:34:01 +0000
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8DA04753-2EE6-45BF-9153-C6E8E4F59A9A@garlik.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 2011-11-11, at 09:02, Ivan Herman wrote:

> On Nov 11, 2011, at 24:47 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2011, at 23:00, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>>> Well then let's make that explicit.
>>> That basically takes us back to something like the first LC design that was rejected.
>> Right. My impression was that it was rejected in 2003 for two reasons:
>> 1) OWL peeps didn't want to ship XML parser with their reasoners
>> 2) In the DOM you don't know whether the original XML had single or double quotes, so an RDF/XML parser implemented on top of a DOM parser may not be able to exactly reproduce the XML from the input file; so why not canonicalize right in the parser to make it deterministic
>> I think 1) is no problem if rdf:XMLLiteral is optional in the datatype map. (That probably wasn't an option in 2003 due to i18n pressure, but we now know that rdf:XMLLiteral failed to deliver its i18n promise.)
>> I think 2) is no longer relevant as RDF/XML is no longer the only game in town.
> And... The past few years have shown that the current design in the spec does not work in practice and the community has not used it as is. Ie, the LC design objections may have been invalidated by practice.


- Steve

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 Friday, 11 November 2011 09:34:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:10 UTC