- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:29:24 -0800
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
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