W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Closing ISSUE-13

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:11:44 +0200
Cc: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, public-rdf-wg Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <89B11F9C-7560-4013-8F14-03D2C6BBB514@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
(First of all, I explicitly cc this to Arnaud; he was one of the co-editors of the DOM3 spec, it would be good if he could review that to be on the safe side...)

Richard,

the only thing I am uncertain about is that issue about the arbitrary XML tag enclosing the whole thing. We clearly need that, but how does that exactly affect the algorithm? After all, A.isEqualNode(B) compares the nodes' names; if different arbitrary enclosing terms are used, then this will return False, although our intention is to say True... Somehow the lexical-to-value mapping algorithm has to keep track, when creating xmldoc, whether such a wrapper element has been added to the original literal or not.

I am not sure what the best way of handling that is. Maybe, conceptually, that top level wrapping element is a predefined RDF element, and must be used only when there is no wrapping element in the original lexical form in the first place. (In any case, this is not something the author of the RDF content should see.)

Ivan 



On May 9, 2012, at 20:12 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Dave, all,
> 
> I have updated the RDF Concepts ED according to today's resolution. Please review.
> 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-XMLLiteral
> 
> RDF Semantics still needs to be updated accordingly (make rdf:XMLLiteral optional and interpret it only under D-Entailment, like any other datatype).
> 
> I've taken the liberty to create an action (on a randomly chosen RDF Semantics editor):
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/170
> 
> No objection to the status change.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On 9 May 2012, at 17:45, David Wood wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Today, we resolved [1]:
>> [[
>> RESOLVED: in RDF 1.1: [a] XMLLiterals are optional; [b] lexical space consists of well-formed XML fragments; [c] the canonical lexical form is http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/, as defined in RDF 2004; [d] the value space consists of (normalized) DOM trees.
>> ]]
>> 
>> Richard's proposal [2], that evolved into this resolution, was meant to close ISSUE-13 [3].  So, I have changed the status of ISSUE-13 to "pending approval" and suggest that the implementation of this resolution be considered editorial in nature.
>> 
>> Any objections?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-09#resolution_1
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0006.html
>> [3] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/13
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


----
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 Thursday, 10 May 2012 08:08:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT