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

RE: Weekly Call for Agenda Items

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:34:11 -0000
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMEFMCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>    - parseType=Literal: I think I saw consensus emerging - do we have a
> proposal?


(At least between Dave and me) and I think it is:

[[[
Propose that:
- the exact form of the string value corresponding to any given XML Literal
within RDF/XML is implementation dependent.
- the string value is well-balanced XML that can be inserted as the elment
content between two tags:

<foo></foo>

to form an XML document, satisfying both XML and XML Namespaces.

- taking the exclusive canonicalization of both the original XML Literal in
its containing document, and the string value within the dummy "<foo></foo>"
document produce the same character string. Equality between xml literals is
defined on this basis, but only for the purpose of exercising the test
cases. [Such equality may be used for other purposes but there are
other notions of equality (such as via Inclusive Canonicalization) that
may also be useful.]
- that the canonicalization above is without comments
- that this closes the xml literal and xml literal namespaces issues
]]]

You raised the subissue of DAML and WebOnt's needs (also MT needs) for
equality.

I added the [Such ... useful.] sentence. IMO we should be leaving wiggle
room for the unusual namespaces to be handled netter next time.

This proposal could be combined with:

Propose that:
- the subissue of interoperable handling of namespaces whose prefixes appear
in attribute values within xml literals without being visibly utilized is
postponed until RDF2.
- we prefer a solution in which a namespace declaration (or redeclaration)
constitutes a visible use
- we prefer a solution which is not reliant on schema processing
- and we action ??? to draw the attention of the appropriate XML WG to this
issue, which we believe is currently not adequately addressable under the
XQuery/XPath 2.0 data model draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 07:35:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:18 EDT