- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 11:16:02 +0100
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <duerst@w3.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:25 22/05/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: >(a) there can be entailments >that hold for XML literals due to canonicalization that do not >hold for plain literals and Since our recent decision to handle canonicalization in the parser [1][2], I don't think it's correct to say that C14N has any impact on entailment relationships between RDF graphs. Though I must concede that C14N can affect entailment between RDF/XML documents. I'm not currently understanding why that's important. #g -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0097.html (item 13) [[ jjc: we discussed this previously essense of change... to present in the specs model in whuch syntax spec does all the work + then add impl notes that say one can be a valid implementation by not doing the canonicalisation ]] [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0021.html ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 06:41:16 UTC