Re: ISSUE: XMLLiteral and xml:lang

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:45:47 -0500 (EST)
• To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
• Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20030207.104547.108316375.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: ISSUE: XMLLiteral and xml:lang
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:28:49 +0000

> 
> 
> I propose that xml:lang and rdf:XMLLiteral are included in OWL Lite and OWL 
> DL and that the concept of dataLiteral in the abstract syntax is aligned 
> with the concept of RDF literal in RDF Concepts.
> 
> Jeremy


To do so would require that an OWL Lite or OWL DL processor include an XML
canonicalization component.  I view this as a significant unnecessary
burden on OWL Lite or OWL DL processors, and thus oppose this proposal.

I also note that the treatment of RDF XML Literals has discrepancies
between the RDF Core WG Last Call Documents.


peter

Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 10:47:17 UTC