- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:40:14 +0300
- To: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <002901c35c17$e2358f70$f89216ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
Whatever solution we choose, it should provide enough information to test equality of values. Option A does not do that. The argument that integers are thus vaguely defined is bogus, in that integers are defined sufficiently well to test for equality, among other things. Option A is quite a bit more vague than the definition of integers. Option B seems the most promising. I'd like to hear a summary of the concerns with this. I don't recall seeing anything on the WG list. Option C is completely unnacceptable to me. It again introduces a unique treatment for the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype, among other shortcomings that I've detailed before and won't repeat here. If none of the above seem to work, then there is the fourth option which is to say that XML literals are self denoting, being canonicalized XML fragments, and those fragments are comparible by character sequence, and may be mapped by XML applications to other things, such as XML Infosets, DOM trees, XPath nodesets, whatever. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: ext Brian McBride To: rdf core Sent: 06 August, 2003 14:29 Subject: Denotation of XMLLiterals: poll It seems that there is some concern about XMLLiterals denoting octet sequences. As I understand things, RDFCore doesn't feel strongly that the denotation MUST be octet sequences. Pat has layed what we really care about in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0452.html I suggest we accept Pat's suggestion and reconsider the denotation of XMLLiterals. I have seen three suggestions, as I recall: A) be a bit vague about XMLLiterals really are - just define their essential properties B) have them denote XPATH nodesets C) have them denote a pair (uri, lex form), where uri is the uri of rdf:XMLLiteral. Concern has been expressed about A being to vague. Others have responded saying thats normal - integers are defined in terms of their properties. Concern has been expressed that XPATH nodesets are too vague, we don't really know that they are and are thus no better than A, but are in some way worse. Cannonicalization does define an equality relation on them I have heard a private concern expressed about C, that if we did that, shouldn't we treat all datatypes that way. Further, that this does guarantee that there are no other ways of denoting the same pair with another, posibly user defined datatype. How do we choose? If you have a preference and rationale, it would be good hear it. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:40:22 UTC