- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:43:40 +0000
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 23/11/11 22:44, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for the comments. I have one question below where I didn't > understand your response. > > On 21 Nov 2011, at 22:37, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> Q0: should XML Literals be optional? >> >> Yes >> >> (I'm pulling this out as I see it not as a consequence of Q2 but as >> a design requirement) > > Ok, noted. > >>> Q1. Should the specs define a way to compare XML literals based >>> on value? >>> >>> In other words, in the same way that integers 7 and 007 have the >>> same value, should<foo/> and<foo></foo> be defined as having >>> the same value? >> >> -1 >> >> A user has worked with GML literals, which some times have 2 or >> more attributes. The sorting requirement of >> exclusive-canonicalization was a surprise to them and meant that >> putting output from a geospatial database into RDF using >> ^^rdf:XMLLiteral didn't work. > > This seems like an argument that responds to Q6 (Should > authors/generators of Turtle documents be expected to produce > canonicalized rdf:XMLLiterals?) and not to Q1. From the GML case that > you describe, I don't follow how you arrive at opposing > infoset/C14N-based comparison for XML literals. GML Literals, taken from a GIS system, don't come out in canonicalized form. There is no control over the production of the GML strings. They come out of an existing system; adding an XML parser into the process at this step (canonicalization) is heavy. Because the equality rules are complicated and not well-known, I think that the spec (we aren't going to have an XMLLiteral spec as I recall) is tying itself in knots. Add in HTML (more important than strict XML?) and equality is looking a bit arbitrary. >> You could argue that it should not be an XML literal, but it seems >> more reasonable to make it a derived type of XML literal (it is XML >> after all) then the canonicalization rules would apply. >> >> It's a tradeoff. I favour weaker equality for more usability. > > Usability, in my understanding, would be about what is a valid > document (that is, what goes into the parser), or what goes into and > comes out of an RDF API. Comparing XML literals based on value > shouldn't affect that. > > So did you respond to Q6 here, or am I misunderstanding your > argument? There isn't the practical possibility of controlling the production. > > Best, Richard Andy
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 09:44:26 UTC