W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Languageless Typed Literals

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:19:45 +0200
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> Option 1:
> XMLLiteral ceases to be a typed literal but we revert to the old
> treatment  where it was simply a special.

> My strong preference is then for option 1, reverting (in a sense)
> XML literals to the M&S definition.
> This has the additional benefit that lexical forms can be left
> as-is in the graph per the RDF/XML serialization and only need be
> canonicalized when testing for equality.
> Thus, plain and XML literals both may take lang tags and neither
> are typed literals nor fall within the scope of RDF datatyping.
> Typed literals do not take lang tags, period.
> This avoids all the headaches relating to the bizzare datatype
> rdf:XMLLiteral.
> Patrick

The old treatment was in say:

I think that the reagle issue resolutions would in the main stay, and the
canonicalization would still be specified in the syntax, but with the
implementation note that makes it clear that they "only **need** be
canonicalized when testing for equality."

I have three concerns about this option:

a) we had comments
linking to



both of which would need resurrecting, since we have followed up saying that
we have changed in the way they sort of wanted.

b) how difficult would it be for Pat to go back and rework

c) impact on OWL support for XML Literals - webont are generally negative
about them, the more work they have to do, the less support there will be in
OWL for these.

Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 06:20:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC