- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 28 Jul 2003 15:57:14 +0100
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Peter, I'm going to interpret this as acceptance of the WG's disposition of pfps-04: [[ PS: Although the current situation may be technically satisfactory in this area, ]] Please speak up if this is not right. Brian On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 14:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > Subject: Re: pfps-04 (why the thread is germane to pfps-04) > Date: 25 Jul 2003 14:00:31 +0100 > > > On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 12:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Two XML literals are (now) equal in RDF precisely when their Exclusive > > > XML Canonicalizations are the same octet sequence. > > > > > > However other answers are harder to determine. > > > > > > 1/ When is an XML literal equal to a plain RDF literal? A plain RDF > > > literal is a Unicode string (sequence of Unicode characters), so this > > > question boils down to whether octets and Unicode characters are disjoint. > > > I found it difficult to answer this question, because of hints in the > > > exclusive canonicalization document that they are not. > > > > I think we've established that UNICODE characters and octet sequences > > are disjoint. Martin, chair of the I18N group confirmed this in: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0069.html > > > > Whilst Martin does not like the RDFCore design, as currently specified > > in the ed's drafts, XMLLiterals and plain literals are disjoint. > > > > Pat has agreed to remove some misleading text, as noted in > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0067.html > > > > > > > > 2/ When is an XML literal equal to an XML Schema string? > > > > As currently defined, never. xsd:string's are not octet sequences, see > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Jul/0043.html > > > > Peter, how are we doing on pfps-04. Have we resolved your comment? > > > > Brian > > 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. It > is less urgent that the related issue of whether the values spaces of > xsd:decimal and xsd:float, but this should also be addressed somewhere, > perhaps only as a test case. > > peter > > 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.
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 10:59:25 UTC