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

Re: parseType="Literal"

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:47:15 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 06:40 PM 11/22/02 +0100, you wrote:

>In the last round of specs we lost something ... between the cracks ...
>The previous round had Concepts doing more work with XML Literals.
>In the last round I did not discuss the mapping from RDF/XML to an
>rdf:XMLLiteral, but Dave pointed to my (non-existent) discussion ... :(
>I did have an action to propose text to Dave: I suspect he didn't see the
>text which was here (two versions):
>(also in the archive)
>On reflection, here's yet another vesion, I'll number the paras for
>replace the last paragraph with:
>[1] The result of a literal l from rdf:parseType="Literal" content is an
>implementation dependent XML Literal.
>[2] Implementations MAY use the exclusive canonicalization with or without
>comments [XC14N] of the literal text l to find the lexical form.
>[3] Implementations MAY choose to ignore namespaces that are not visibly
>utilized (as defined by [XC14N]), XML comments, and aspects of an XML
>document that are not reflected in the canonical form (e.g. insignificant
>white space within element tags).
>[4] Implementations MAY choose to not ignore such aspects of the literal
>text l.
>[5] Implementations are NOT REQUIRED to perform canonicalization
>when creating an RDF graph corresponding to an RDF/XML document.
>[6] Implementations MUST preserve in the lexical form of the XML Literal the
>information found in the exclusive canonicalization without comments [XC14N]
>of the literal text l.
>[7] See the [RDF-CONCEPTS] section on XML Literals for further information.
>[1] Constrains implementations a bit.
>[2] - [5] are all just (normative) suggestions, to leave implementors with
>ideas about how to do this. They are normative in that an implementor will
>know that they have satisfied their obligations if they perform [2].

Er, I think it's [6] that's normative in the respect you describe.

>[6] is the only paragraph that defines the minimum requirement, but I think
>it could be deleted. This would then, technically, allow an RDF
>implementation to always return an empty string.

Quite.  Is that really acceptable?  I think [6] is the entry that should be 
retained, and that [2]-[5] are possibly-useful discussion, in that they 
indicate some sufficient-but-not-necessary conditions for satisfying [6].


>Given that this is (too?) long; it could be reduced to just say [1] [2] [5]
>The problem is that the phrasing is inevitably daunting, [6] requires some
>study of an obscure recommendation to understand it.

Graham Klyne
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 09:36:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC