FW: [sc34wg3] CTM: Working draft for Montreal

Lars Heuer heuer at semagia.com
Fri Aug 11 05:54:05 EDT 2006

Hi Andreas,

Thanks for your comments.

I'll comment the questions you brought up regarding IRI and QNames.
You are right that the terminology in the CTM EBNF has to be discussed
and needs a fix.

[Triple double quotes vs. single double quotes]
> benefit the latter option offers. The spec is silent on this. (I assume
> they do what they do in Python.)


> It is also, outside its EBNF appendix, silent on whether the following
> is legal: (It is according to the EBNF.)

>    """12-22"""^^xsd:gMonthDay

Yes it is legal.

> - Furthermore section 5.1.3, Datatypes, makes an exception for http:
> IRIs when it comes to enclosing them in angle brackets. Unfortunately
> this is ambiguous: http:contentType can be both a QName and a valid
> http: *IRI reference*.

"http:contentType" should be treated as QName since the slashes (I
think the standard call it "scheme-specific part") are missing.
"http://contentType" will be treated as IRI.

> - Also the spec text of explicit datatype assignments in section 5.1.3
> seems buggy: "Any datatype can be expressed by representing the value as
> a string and appending the datatype-qualifier (^^) and the IRI of the
> datatype"

> This is wrong; what is appended is not the datatype's IRI but a QName
> placeholder of said IRI. In this light the possible ambiguity (depending

Well, it should be possible to append a IRI *or* a QName. The CTM
examples use QNames since they are easier to write.

Best regards,

More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list