- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: 2003年7月24日 11:31:16 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <20030724.113116.43884887.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: Re: pfps-04 Date: 24 Jul 2003 15:53:39 +0100 > On Wed, 2003年07月23日 at 23:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > [...] > > > Therefore for the RDF entailment rules to be complete, no XML Literal can > > have a character string as its denotation. > > Right. The denotation of an XML Literal is an octet sequence, as > defined by the xml canonicalization spec, see the note in: > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-XMLLiteral Unfortunately this does not answer the question. Octet sequence is undefined in http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/. At least some places in this document appear to indicate that an octet sequence is just a sequence of (Unicode?) characters. (See for example, the example in Section 2.2 of ``the Canonical XML version of elem2 from the second case''.) Also, the phrase ``exclusive canonical XML refers to XML that is in exclusive canonical form'' appears to indicate that exclusive canonical XML is a subset of XML, again indicating that octets should probably be a restricted form of (Unicode?) characters. Following pointers leads to http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315, where the canonical form of an XML document is a physical representation of the document encoded in UTF-8, and talks about octets encoding various kinds of characters. This doesn't help matters too much. So the question boils down to whether octets and Unicode characters are disjoint. [...] Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:31:35 UTC