W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: ISSUE-77 (xsd-c14n): XSD canonicalization 1.0 or 1.1? [R2RML]

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:38:06 +0000
Cc: RDB2RDF Working Group WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5911E8E2-9F68-43D7-811E-12B0F44B65E8@deri.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

> The OWL 2 adoption has not suffered from this issue at all, nobody  
> raised any problems since 2009. My advise would be to adopt the same  
> line of action for R2RML and DM. It would be wrong to keep to 1.0  
> when other SW standards have made the choice of 1.1

+1 ... sounds sensible to me.

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 with the procedure described by Ivan

Cheers,
	Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html

On 25 Nov 2011, at 08:24, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Richard, all,
>
> We do have precedence here. Both the OWL and the RIF WG-s hit  
> exactly the same issue (I have not checked lately for SPARQL and I  
> imagine the RDF WG will hit the same problem, too). Here is what has  
> happened in the OWL 2case (the RIF is fairly identical).
>
> - OWL 2 has clearly chosen for XSD 1.1. That means the reference in  
> the document _is_ on the XSD 1.1 CR document. Unusual, slight  
> breakage of the rules, but it was necessary.
> - The 'Status' section of the Recommendation includes a subsection  
> on this, see the example below
> - Once the Recommendations were published, the OWL 2 WG went into a  
> 'dormant' state. Ie, it is not formally closed, is maintained in the  
> books, but there is not activity (calls, etc). The only exception is  
> that error reports are stored and maintained in a file; something  
> that this group will have to plan for when the time comes anyway.
> - The agreement is that once the XSD 1.1 is published as Rec, the  
> Group reconvenes and publishes what we call an Edited  
> Recommendation. That is a rec that has absolutely non difference in  
> technical content v.a.v. the original ones, but only editorial  
> changes (misspellings, that sort of things). In this specific case  
> that ER of OWL 2 will change the formal reference to the XSD 1.1  
> Rec, remove that status subsection and, if any, fold in the  
> editorial errors that the community may have found. Ie, there would  
> be an editorial work to be done when the time comes, and editorial  
> work that is clearly quick and can be done by 1-2 persons.
>
> The OWL 2 adoption has not suffered from this issue at all, nobody  
> raised any problems since 2009. My advise would be to adopt the same  
> line of action for R2RML and DM. It would be wrong to keep to 1.0  
> when other SW standards have made the choice of 1.1
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
> Here is the status subsection I was referring to:
>
> [[[
> XML Schema Datatypes Dependency
>
> OWL 2 is defined to use datatypes defined in the XML Schema  
> Definition Language (XSD). As of this writing, the latest W3C  
> Recommendation for XSD is version 1.0, with version 1.1 progressing  
> toward Recommendation. OWL 2 has been designed to take advantage of  
> the new datatypes and clearer explanations available in XSD 1.1, but  
> for now those advantages are being partially put on hold.  
> Specifically, until XSD 1.1 becomes a W3C Recommendation, the  
> elements of OWL 2 which are based on it should be considered  
> optional, as detailed in Conformance, section 2.3. Upon the  
> publication of XSD 1.1 as a W3C Recommendation, those elements cease  
> to be optional and are to be considered required as otherwise  
> specified.
>
> We suggest that for now developers and users follow the XSD 1.1  
> Candidate Recommendation. Based on discussions between the Schema  
> and OWL Working Groups, we do not expect any implementation changes  
> will be necessary as XSD 1.1 advances to Recommendation.
> ]]]
>
> See http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/
>
>
> On Nov 25, 2011, at 24:30 , RDB2RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>>
>> ISSUE-77 (xsd-c14n): XSD canonicalization  1.0 or 1.1? [R2RML]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/77
>>
>> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
>> On product: R2RML
>>
>> So it turns out that XSD canonicalization is actually very  
>> different between XSD 1.0 and XSD 1.1. Quite a lot has changed  I  
>> don't have the full picture but handling of time zone offsets is  
>> different, handling of decimals appears to be different, and who  
>> knows what else.
>>
>> Given that XSD 1.1 is in the CR stage, I don't feel very good about  
>> writing spec text that asks R2RML/DM implementers to implement XSD  
>> 1.0 canonicalization rules that will soon be obsolete.
>>
>> On the other hand, given that XSD 1.1 is not yet at REC stage, we  
>> can't write spec text that normatively prescribes the use of XSD  
>> 1.1 canonicalization rules.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 08:38:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 November 2011 08:38:46 GMT