Re: Made rdf:HTML/XMLLiteral non-normative

So to emphasise my last reply: it would not be good to say that they must recognize the IRIs but need not interpret them properly. Or to say anything which could possibly be interpreted in this way. I don't see any reason to separate the L2V mapping from the IRI-datatype mapping and say that one of them is normative and the other not. That way madness, or at least confusion, lies. 

Pat

On Dec 16, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Monday, December 16, 2013 5:33 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>> The non normative part is the lexical to value mapping. The IRI denoting
>> a HTML or XML literal is still normativish. At least I think so
> 
> Hmm... well, the l2v mapping of a datatype is probably its most important aspect. It could be said that the IRI is just used to identify this function and as such doesn't have any value without it.
> 
> Maybe Pat or Peter could tell us what consequences removing the statement would have for semantics or how they handled the change.
> 
>  Recognized IRIs have fixed referents, which MUST satisfy these conditions:
> 
>  1. If the IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral is
>     recognized then it refers to the datatype rdf:XMLLiteral;
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Markus
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 17:29:55 UTC