- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:32:17 +0300
- To: <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <gk@ninebynine.org>, <phayes@ihmc.us>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
-----Original Message----- From: ext Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] Sent: Fri 8/1/2003 4:17 PM To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) Cc: Brian McBride; Jeremy Carroll; Graham Klyne; ext pat hayes; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org; Peter F. Patel-Schneider Subject: Re: XML literals On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 00:06, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] > > Maybe. > > in 1:1 correspondence with the lexical space. > Right. Hmm... that one gave me pause... but OK. > The exact nature of XML values is not specified. > > No. This bothers me. Alot. Really? The exact nature of integers is not specified; just various relationships like addition and multiplication of them. No. The nature of integers *is* specified, by the relationships such as addition, multiplication, etc. Perhaps I've misunderstood Pat, but I understood him to be saying that we simply are not going to say anything about the L2V mapping other than it is 1:1 -- i.e. it may very well be that the value space of rdfs:XMLLiteral is rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer! Since after all, we could posit an L2V mapping that mapped canonical XML fragments onto integers in a 1:1 relationship (theoretically at least). If it bothers you, then feel free to suggest an alternative. I did. We could pick any set that's in 1-1 correspondence with the lexical space; e.g. pairs (humpty-dumpty, lexical-value) or perhaps less churlishly... (http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> , lexical-value) > It is our responsibility to define what the values of XML Literals > are. Only inasmuch as required to get the technology deployed. If you mean deployed in a fully system independent, portable manner that facilitates the interchange of RDF expressed knowledge between arbitrary applications where interoperability is based on our specs, then I agree. But I'm not sure you're saying that. "Deployed" can mean so many things. > It's *our* datatype, and no'one else should have to define it, or > guess. They don't have to guess; what Pat wrote tells them everything they need to know. I'm an implementor, and *I* am unsure of what the value space of rdfs:XMLLiteral contains, per Pat's recent recommended change. It is clearly *not* the set of lexical forms -- which is the only thing that looks like XML to me. It could be the set of all pumpkins that have ever existed for all I know. I expect to operate on values, not lexical forms, and if the datatype definition does not tell me which value I have, given a particular lexical form, the that definition is incomplete and unnacceptable. > I've never understood the opposition to having a value space > consisting of infosets. I wish someone would tell me what significant > problem or issue I'm missing... How to construct an infoset and how to compare them isn't specified. Thank you. That seems a good reason for not having infosets in the value space. Still, we do need to define what the value space of rdfs:XMLLiteral is. At the very least, we can simply make rdfs:XMLLiterals self denoting, no? Patrick
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 03:39:39 UTC