W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

RDF XML Syntax doc proposed changes / issues

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 15:05:21 +0000
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <27373.1039014321@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


This is my list of things I'm proposing to do for the last call draft
updating http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108
for a new version for this Friday 6th according to our schedule.

The changes cover the status, abstract, sections 1,5,6,7
the References, Appendices A and B.


Replace rdfs:XMLLiteral with rdf:XMLLiteral -  Update the
RDF namespace (5.1), XML Literal Event (6.1.8)

Change XML Literal Event (6.1.8) and grammar action notation xml()
(6.3) to be a Typed Literal Event and typed-literal() to match the
terms in concepts (point to them).  Move the datatyping there from
the literal() term.  [Maybe change literal() to plain-literal() too??]

Add a resolve() grammar action notation to 6.3 to explicitly note
when URI resolving is done as URI-refs are built from string content
and base URIs.

Add a generate-id() grammar action notation to 6.3 to show when blank
node identifiers are generated.  Explain how blank node identifiers
are used in RDF/XML, in N-Triples compared to the RDF graph.  Ensure
that these can be different syntaxes but mappable (there must be a
better phrase for that).  I hope I can still point at something useful at
  http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-blank-node-id


Delete appendix A - Issues affecting RDF/XML Syntax (Informative)
- this removes the canonicalization references to RDF Concepts

Delete appendix B.2 - Other Syntax Schemas (Informative)

Update/delete other words related specifically to the 2002-11-08
draft such as abstract, status, notes.

Update links to match RDF Concepts section renumberings.

Update references.

If I have time, check the RELAX NG.

---

Issues:

* Add some form of canonicalisation words?

  I prefer something lightweight like Brian suggested:

  [[This specification allows an implementation some freedom to
  choose exactly what string it will use as the lexical form of an
  XML Literal.  Whatever string an implementation uses , its
  canonicalization (without comments, as defined in ...) must be the
  same as the same canonicalization of the literal text l.  A minimal
  implementation is to use l without change.
  ]]

  This has been suggested to go in
    http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt
  to replace the last sentence.


* change the title?

  This was partially from the forms suggested in W3C manual of style
  which is optional anyway http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/ and the
  proposed change was to call it "Resource Description Framework
  (RDF): XML Syntax" I think.  I'm neutral-to-slightly against, but
  I'm happy to leave the last word on this to Brian.  

  
* Appendix C changes - delete?

  I think this is useful to keep; or at least keep the changes from
  between WDs here, linking to previous changes sections.  It is
  going to stay at the moment.

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 10:07:45 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:48 EDT