- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:36:05 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hello Peter, At 09:27 03/07/25 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >I believe that a complete theory of equality for XML literals resolves this >comment. I suggest that several test cases be added to the RDF test suite. > >The related issue of whether the value spaces of xsd:string and plain >literals are disjoint also appears to be well on the way to resolution. Apart from the issue of language information (plain literals can take language information, xsd:string can't), what is the reason for making these two disjoint? We seem to get into a serious proliferation of string-related datatypes that provide no useful distinction. In RDF, the simple text "Hello World" (without language information) can be a plain literal, an xsd:string, and an XML literal. What is the point of them all being different if there is no observable difference? >PS: Although the current situation may be technically satisfactory in this >area, the pain in getting there suggests that a slightly different >description of XML literals might be more useful, perhaps something along >the line of making the value space of XML literals in RDF be some abstract >set with equality defined as per exclusive XML canonicalization and >explicitly determined to be disjoint from the value space of plain RDF >literals and also from the XSD value spaces. This would also probably make >the XML guys much more happy. I have proposed something like this just a day or two ago. It would definitely make I18N quite a bit happier, because it would not be a straightforward violation of the Character Model, and would indeed be much more in line with the XML spec. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 16:33:35 UTC