W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cwm-bugs@w3.org > October 2007

Re: CWM Bug: Don't Canonicalise Lists

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:11:00 +0000
Message-ID: <b6bb4d890710291311l2096ee27w4f695f5c44d04e8a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: public-cwm-bugs@w3.org

On 10/16/07, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:

> I suppose we could make it an option.
> Note also though that cwm does datatype canonicalization as
> well for example for 08 and 8.
> Would you want that removed?

No, I understand the utility of list canonicalisation now, but I'm
worried about the possiblity of it making cwm incompatible with the
RDF standards. As DanC noted on IRC, "you might be able to phrase some
entailment test invoving rdf:first that cwm would fail because it
forgot about axiomatic lists".

The added *practical* pain is that it's a computational burden to
canonicalise lists when parsing N3, so should it be such an ingrained
part of the language? Perhaps a clearer demonstration is formula
canonicalisation: for that you have to do graph isomorphism, an even
bigger computational burden.

Nobody is saying that all N3 processors must canonicalise, of course,
I understand. But if I want to process non-canon N3, what can I test
against? CWM is N3's only reference specification, so you can't really
write a standalone N3 parser without the two kinds of
canonicalisation.

I'm therefore leaving this bug open until you produce a reference
specification, or a non-canonicalised N3 test suite, or formally
forbid non-canon N3, or... :-)

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 20:11:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:01 UTC