- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 08:54:09 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll (by way of Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>)" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
"Jeremy Carroll (by way of Ralph R. Swick )" wrote: [...] > I am hoping that this text may be agreed upon on Friday. Er... whoa! I'm having trouble following this thread... I doubt I'll be prepared to decide on this by Friday. I need direct implementation experience with whatever proposal we come up with in order to be comfortable. (test cases are really important for that, btw.) In particular: [...] > [1] > An RDF Literal is a Unicode string, optionally paired with a > language tag (as defined in RFC3066). What happened to the proposal that an RDF literal is a (string, URI) pair? As I've said, I think it's important to decide this issue in the context of integration with XML schema datatypes. But I can at least see how the (string, URI) idea would work with XML schema datatypes. > [1a] > The Unicode String in an RDF Literal is normalized according > to Unicode Normalization Form C [NFC, NFC-Corrigendum], using > a framework of early uniform normalization. Yikes! I haven't seen enough motivation to change the RDF 1.0 spec in that way. (maybe the motivation is there and I just haven't read it.) > [2] > Future versions of RDF may migrate to a more general mechanism for > literal representation in which the current representation would be > embedded. I'm not comfortable with that. > One candidate is that an RDF literal would be a pair > of a unicode string and a URI reference. The current literals would > be embedded within this new representation using a well-known URI > as a base for all language tag URIs. > > [3] > NOTE: The RDF Core Working Group has yet to consider whether > such an approach would be useful for integrating XML schema > datatyping with RDF. I'm not comfortable with that either (as I've said). > [4] > When comparing two RDF Literals, their Unicode strings MUST be > equal for the RDF Literals to compare as equal. If both Literals > have language tags, these tags MUST be equal for the Literals to > be considered equal. If two Literals are found with equal Unicode > strings but only one has a language tag, the Literals SHOULD NOT > be considered equal. [...] For the rest, I'd have to have my implementation-source-code open in the other window to review it carefully. No time for that just now. (I'm in another telcon :-( ). -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 09:55:13 UTC