Mark Birbeck wrote:
So however people reply to this view-point, they need to make some
reference to RDF Concepts, and say why my interpretation *of that* is
wrong.
I think you're framing the problem incorrectly and torturing yourself
into more complexity than needed.
But instead of writing another massive email, let me try to identify
where, in the logical flow, we disagree with one another.
In your flow, here's where I disagree:
(1) we run the RDFa parser on an input document,
(*) the output of the RDFa parser is RDF
(2) we take the output of the parser and stuff it into a triple store,
(3) we SPARQL against the triple store.
Step (*) is imprecise, in my opinion; it mixes abstract and concrete.
The output of an RDFa parser is, IMO, *a serialization of an RDF graph*.
That is the key difference, because the "RDF Concepts" definition of
XMLLiteral applies to the abstract graph, not to all of the graph's
valid serializations.
Now, help me understand where you disagree with my reasoning. Here are
two RDF N3 *serializations*:
<> dc:title
"<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
foo <b xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>bar</b>
</div>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
and
<> dc:title
"<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
foo <b>bar</b>
</div>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
If I'm reading the XMLLiteral canonicalization process correctly, I
believe that the two examples above are serializations of the same RDF
graph.
Do you agree? If not, why not?
-Ben
