W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

RE: XML literals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:34:32 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B026301B8@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


I think the notes should remain.

Even if some notes are redundant, given more deeply
buried facts about the model, making them clear in 
this fashion is IMO highly beneficial for users.

I'm satisfied with this definition.

Patrick



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 13 August, 2003 18:43
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XML literals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main planks of Pat's text from
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0452
> 
> seemed to get support at the RDF Core WG telecon on Friday, I 
> was actioned
> to move the conversation forward, and ensure that Martin and 
> I18N were in on
> it.
> My understanding is that the main goal was to avoid any possibility of
> confusing XMLLiteral with xsd:hexBinary as in Martin's test case.
> 
> I also am trying to adequately address Patrick's concerns 
> while changing
> Pat's text as little as possible.
> 
> Brian used the term "XML fragment" at the telecon, I am 
> however sticking
> with Pat's "XML value" because of the existence of
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-fragment
> 
> which makes Brian's preferred term misleading.
> I would be happy to consider other words for XML value.
> 
> For completeness I also include stuff on the lexical space, 
> since there was
> some concern that the wording is not about Unicde strings ... 
> and the word
> "corresponding" ...
> 
> I have numbered the notes for the sake of this e-mail, 
> further discussion
> below.
> 
> Patrick - please indicate whether the last two notes (2,3) adequately
> address your concerns. (3) ended up perhaps more geared 
> towards some of
> Martin's concerns.
> 
> I ended up unclear as to whether note 2 was wanted by the WG or not.
> 
> [[
> The lexical space
>   is the set of all strings which:
>   + are well-balanced, self-contained XML data [XML];
>   + correspond  under [UTF-8] encoding to exclusive Canonical
>     XML (with comments, with empty InclusiveNamespaces
>     PrefixList ) [XML-XC14N];
>   + when embedded between an arbitrary XML start tag and an end tag
>     correspond to a document conforming to XML Namespaces [XML-NS]
> 
> 
> The value space is a set of entities, called XML values, which is:
>   + disjoint from the lexical space
>   + disjoint from the value space of any XML schema datatype 
> [XML-SCHEMA2]
>   + disjoint from the set of Unicode character strings [Unicode]
>   + in 1:1 correspondence with the lexical space.
> 
> 
> 
> The lexical-to-value mapping
>    is a one-one mapping from the lexical space onto the value space,
>    i.e. it is both injective and surjective.
> 
> 
> 
> Note (1): Not all lexical forms of this datatype are 
> compliant with XML 1.1
> [XML 1.1]. If compliance with XML 1.1 is desired, then only 
> those that are
> fully normalized according to XML 1.1 should be used.
> 
> Note (2): XML values can be thought of as the [XML Infoset] or
> the [XPath] nodeset corresponding to the lexical form, with 
> an appropriate
> equality function.
> 
> Note (3): RDF applications may use additional equivalence 
> relations, such as
> that which relates an xsd:string with an rdf:XMLLiteral 
> corresponding to a
> single text node of the same string.
> 
> ]]
> 
> 
> I seem to recall concern about putting too much into notes. 
> Either the stuff
> is sufficiently important to go into the design, or it isn't.
> 
> This may be sufficient to kill notes (2) and (3). I am 
> reluctant to drop
> note (1) since the RDF specs have largely followed charmod on 
> NFC which puts
> us into a somewhat anomolous position between XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 ...
> 
> If the notes add clarity then it is probably best to keep them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 01:34:36 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:37 EDT