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

Re: RDF XML Syntax doc proposed changes / issues

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:17:54 +0000
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-ID: <24823.1039105074@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Brian McBride said:
> Did you look at
> 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0649.html

I missed that.

It seems to be a textual version similar to the words near

   3. XML Content within an RDF Graph
   http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-XMLLiteral

The latter mentions XML canonicalization and the rdf-wrapper thing.
Is this section changing (are the drafts online yet?).  I expect it
isn't sufficient to point at since it outlines the datatype point of
view of rdf:XMLLiteral, and we need here to give an RDF/XML
description.

I'm thinking maybe not emphasising implementation so much,
since this is meant to be a syntax for a language, not a code
description. 

How about:

[[[
This specification allows some freedom to choose exactly what string
is used as the lexical form of an XML Literal.  Whatever string is
used, it must correspond to an XML document when enclosed within a
start and end element tag, and its canonicalization (without
comments, as defined in [REF]) must be the same as the same
canonicalization of the literal text l.  It is acceptable to use l
without any changes but this is incorrect if, for example, l uses
entity references or namespace prefixes defined in the outer XML
document.
]]]

Not sure where [REF] points to. Is that to:
 Exclusive XML Canonicalization (Version 1.0)
 http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/

?

Which, I note, is a new reference for rdf/xml.  Is this normative?

I went back to the paragraph above and added the emphasis keywords.

[[[
This specification allows some freedom to choose exactly what string
is used as the lexical form of an XML Literal.  Whatever string is
used, it MUST correspond to an XML document when enclosed within a
start and end element tag, and its canonicalization (without
comments, as defined in [REF]) MUST be the same as the same
canonicalization of the literal text l.  It is acceptable to use l
without any changes but this is incorrect if, for example, l uses
entity references or namespace prefixes defined in the outer XML
document.
]]]

If MUST is used above, then X14CN becomes normative.  And I'm worried
when we add new normative refs.  We may have to weaken that to SHOULD.

I think
   "but this is incorrect if, for example"
might have to be rewritten in the emphasis form something like:
   "but this MUST NOT be used if, for example,..."

?


I just noticed 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-XMLLiteral
refers to: Canonical XML [XML-C14N] (with comments).

so is it with/without comments?

Dave
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 11:19:47 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:49 EDT