- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:11:28 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, phayes@ai.uwf.edu
From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: Re: pfps-04 [RDF entailment rules not yet complete] Date: 31 Jul 2003 14:23:01 +0100 > Peter wrote: > > [[ > I believe that the rules for rdf entailments are still incomplete in > RDF Semantics (Editors [sic] Draft of July 27). > > For example, consider the RDF graph > > ex:foo ex:bar "<ex/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral . > > I believe that this graph rdf-entails > > ex:foo ex:bar "<ex></ex>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral . > ]] > > Is "<ex/>" a member of the lexical space of rdf:XMLLiteral? I don't > think so: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-XMLLiteral > > [[ > The lexical space > is the set of all strings which: > * are well-balanced, self-contained XML data [XML]; > * correspond to exclusive Canonical XML (with comments, > with empty InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList) [XML-XC14] > ]] > > "<ex/>" does not correspond to exclusive canonical XML; it would have to > be "<ex></ex>". > > Brian I am unconvinced. Just what does ``correspond'' mean here - does it mean ``are'' or does it mean ``resulting in ... when canonicalized''? I give it the second meaning, so that "<em></em>" is in the lexical space, but "<" is not. I note that the relevant pointers in RDF Semantics are still broken. I also note that if the first meaning is indeed correct, then much of the treatment of XML literals in RDF Semantics needs to be changed. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 10:11:42 UTC