- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:06:17 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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''? Neither. It means that if you encode the string using UTF-8 you get cannonicalized XML. I'll check this on the WG list. Thus "<ex></ex>" is in the lexical space, and "<ex/>" is not. I give it > the second meaning, so that "<em></em>" is in the lexical space, but "<" is > not. I think your conclusions are right, your premise 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. Oops - please can you say why. Brian
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 11:07:41 UTC