Re: Possible syntax restriction on encoding rdf:XMLLiteral

Hmmm, I'm not convinced about this.

1) it seems to fall into the category of making stupidity illegal in the 
sense that there are two ways to write xml literals - one is clearer 
than the other, so lets try to make the other illegal.  If stupidy were 
illegal, I'd spend alot of time in gaol, so I'm not sympathetic to that.

2) I don't expect many users to read machine generated rdf/xml.

3) it doesn't achieve its goal.  there is nothing to stop folks defining 
synonyms for rdf:XMLLiteral, so I don't see how one can prevent it.

So to me it just looks like creating an unecessary corner case, but as 
always, the WG decides.

Brian



Dave Beckett wrote:
> Martin Duerst suggests
> 
> [[It seems much simpler to have the spec simply forbid using
> &rdf;XMLLiteral in a datatype attribute in RDF/XML.]]
> -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0410.html
> 
> I said on our design of using exc-C14n in the parser and mentioned in
> rdf concepts rather than in semantics
> [[
> We didn't want to require people to have an XML parser
> for handling RDF's abstract syntax so all the XML checking
> belongs in the mapping from RDF/XML to the triples.
> ]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0038.html
> 
> Martin replied later on issues for users:
> [[
> Here is some thoughts I have gone through:
> - It makes things somewhat different for software writing RDF/XML:
>    It can't just write out all types with rdf:datatype. But this is
>    probably a desirable effect.
> - For users, there are really a lot of users out there, and it's
>    not very easy to say in general. But in my view, it very much helps
>    them understanding XML Literals if they see these literals always
>    at the same level of escaping. Most people seem to get confused
>    very quickly with different escaping levels. Using only
>    rdf:parseType='Literal' would mean that the basic escaping is
>    the same in the RDF/XML syntax, in the abstract syntax, and,
>    as far as I understand, in most implementations. I think
>    that is a serious benefit.
> ]]
> -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0045.html
> 
> 
> I think this is a plausible set of reasons - and entity encoding XML is
> a bit ugly, particularly to show to end-users.  If it remained internal
> that would be better from usability, I feel.
> 
> So the proposal is to forbid (in the SYNTAX, not semantics or abs syn):
>   rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral"
> and require XML literals to be written in the rdf:parseType="Literal" form.
> 
> Proposed change to 7.2.16 Production literalPropertyElt adding a sentence
> [[
> d.string-value cannot be rdf:XMLLiteral.  XML Literals are written using the form
> given in 7.2.17 Production parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt.
> ]]
> -- changing http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/#literalPropertyElt
> 
> Plus adding a bad parser test case datatypes/bad001.rdf that shows this:
> 
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>           xmlns:eg="http://example.org/">
> <rdf:Description>
>    <eg:prop rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral">&lt;em>foo&lt;/em></eg:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> This has the benefits:
>   * The literal form of rdf:XMLLiteral in the graph will always be in exc-C14N form
>   * No(? less?) XML c14N checker/words need be in the semantics
>   * Ensures only one way to encode rdf:XMLLiteral.
>   * Easier to read the non-entity encoded XML.
>   * XML transported 'through' RDF will be more like the original form (caveat exc-C14N)
>   * Document impact is small - syntax WD only (primer doesn't use this form)
> 
> Downsides:
>   * It is a change
>   * Somebody is likely using this rdf:datatype form.
>   * It'll make a new test case that no existing parser will pass.
> 
> Personally I'm favouring the change.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 09:53:53 UTC