W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: 2001-09-07#5 - literal problem

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:46:47 +0100
Message-ID: <3BA1D207.358A7CFA@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

I wrote:
>+ Does the WG agree that the new specs should descibe a specific Unicode
>string to be delivered by rdf:parseType="Literal"?

Graham wrote:
> I must confess I'm not very clear what this means.

I should clarify (or at least try to :) ).

The old spec M&S seems to be deliberately vague about precisely which
triple is generated by say:

  <rdf:value rdf:parseType="Literal"><foo/></rdf:value>

My reading is that it permits

_:anon <rdf:value> "<foo/>" .


:anon <rdf:value> "<foo></foo>" .


_:anon <rdf:value> "<foo />" .


_:anon <rdf:value> "<foo  />" .


In general, for each feature identify as not in the infoset in XML
Infoset, I think it is plausible to make examples where the old spec is
deliberately ambiguous as to what the triple should be.

Another example, (less silly)

  <rdf:value rdf:parseType="Literal"><foo a="a" b="b"/></rdf:value>

My reading is that it permits

_:anon <rdf:value> "<foo a='a' b='b'/>" .


_:anon <rdf:value> "<foo b='b' a='a'/>" .

Either we decide to continue this deliberate ambiguity, or we decide to
resolve it.
This is the question I was raising.

The old spec is also quiet about XML comments, XML processing
instructions, XML namespaces, and references.

Maybe that was wise, maybe it was foolish.

Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 05:42:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC