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

Re: Closing ISSUE-13

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:06:53 +0100
Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, public-rdf-wg Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <516D08AD-83A1-4398-8C6D-118D66338118@cyganiak.de>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Ivan,

On 10 May 2012, at 14:04, Ivan Herman wrote:
> - A.isEqualNode(B)[1] compares the notes A and B _and_ its children. Ie, it compares, among other things, the nodeName of the two document fragments

Sure, but:

> - the LV mapping returns the result of the following transforms on L (lexical value)
>  wrap L into _something_ -> xmldoc -> domdoc -> domfrag -> normalize()  

No.

[[
Let domfrag be a DOM DocumentFragment whose childNodes attribute is equal to the childNodes attribute of domdoc's documentElement attribute
]]

domfrag is a *new* document fragment that includes only the *child nodes* of domdoc's document element. It does *not* include the document element.

> So I can be evil enough and wrap a lexical value into a _different_ XML element before doing the rest of the transformation for each lexical value.

You can do that and there is nothing evil about it.

> As a result, the values will always be different under the value space comparison.

No. This gives you different domdocs, but equivalent domfrags. After normalization, they will compare equal.

> It is obviously a stupid and pathological case, but the exact wording of the algorithm does not exclude that...

I think you are mistaken.

Best,
Richard


> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#Node3-isEqualNode
> 
> On May 10, 2012, at 14:27 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> Ivan,
>> 
>> On 10 May 2012, at 09:11, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> (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...)
>> 
>> +1!
>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> The thing with the arbitrary enclosing start and end tag was taken straight from RDF 2004. It's in the definition of the lexical space.
>> 
>>> 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...
>> 
>> But A.isEqualNode(B) compares the *values*, and the values are the result of applying the L2V mapping, and the L2V mapping returns only the *child nodes* of the document element. So the arbitrary element that we created is *not* being compared; only the list of its children is compared.
>> 
>>> 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'm not sure what you mean. If the original literal already is properly wrapped in matching start and end tags (that is, it's already a well-formed XML document, not just an XML fragment), then the phrasing as is just wraps it into another element. Everything should still work.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what problem this would solve.
>> 
>>> (In any case, this is not something the author of the RDF content should see.)
>> 
>> They don't.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 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 13:07:24 GMT

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