Re: Denotation of XMLLiterals: poll

Patrick Stickler wrote:
> Whatever solution we choose, it should provide enough information
> to test equality of values.
>  
> Option A does not do that.

Sorry, if I've not been clear.  With option A, I had in mind something 
close to what Pat suggested.  This includes the notion that the mapping 
from the lex space to the value space of xml literals is 1:1.

Thus it is possible to test whether xml literal values are equal by 
comparing their lexical forms.

[...]

>  
> 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.

Thanks for being brief Patrick, but in this case I could do with a 
reminder.  I have had a search and didn't find the post(s) you refer to. 
  Could you provide a link?

>  
> 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.

The trouble with that seems to be that it fails to distinguish between 
markup and text, e.g.

   _:a eg:prop "<br></br>" .

rdf entails

   _:a eg:prop "<br></br>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral .

I think there is general agreement that is a bad thing.

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 09:17:53 UTC