W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: 2001-09-07#5 Literals

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:46:32 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 03:19 PM 9/24/01 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>RDF/XML documents SHOULD be W3C-normalized as specified in
>[CHARMOD]. Moreover, after the stripping of comments and
>processing instructions an RDF/XML document SHOULD still be
>W3C-normalized. It is the responsibility of the document
>creator to fulfil this requirement. RDF/XML processors MUST NOT
>correct input that is not W3C-normalized.

I'm not sure what is the value of saying this.

It seems to me that this would be an application concern,
if an RDF processor is still expected to accept non-normalized XML
as a literal.  Hence I'd rather say nothing here.

>RDF/XML processors MAY detect lack of W3C-normalization in
>an input document, and issue a diagnostic.

Similarly, I don't think this has any place in the RDF specification, other 
than perhaps as a non-normative implementation recommendation (hence not 
using RFC 2119 form - may rather than MAY).

>Summary of text normalization for RDF/XML processors.
>RDF/XML processors MUST use a normalizing transcoder
>from non-UCS-based encodings.
>RDF/XML processors MUST NOT do any other text normalization.

What's a normalizing transcoder in this context?  (I think this means 
conversion to character-normalized UCS/Unicode.)

[Later:  now I see -- 
http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#def-normalizing-transcoder; citation at this 
point would be helpful.].

>Unicode string equality within Literals is given by binary
>(cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-IdentityMatching )

I think the expression "binary equality" here is an over-simplification of 
the cited identity matching algorithm;  I'd suggest describing it as 
"String identity matching, per [citation]".

>RDF Literals arising from the propertyElt production with
>rdf:parseType="Literal" attribute (using the [n]th production
>of 6.12):

I think the indicated transformations are legitimate for *any* value of 
parseType;  if parseType='Resource' that would not affect the resultant 
RDF, and for other values of parseType, if they are not recognized then 
they may be treated as 'Literal' per spec.


Apart from these small comments, I think you've done an impressively 
thorough job here.


Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 11:22:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:51 UTC