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

RE: pfps-06 hold off?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:16:17 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B0263023E@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <phayes@ihmc.us>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>


Where is 

  " 33 "^^?D 

coming from in your implementation? What is generating it?

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com]
> Sent: 27 August, 2003 15:10
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); 
> phayes@ihmc.us;
> w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you are talking about.
> Could you please provide a test case where
> the issue you seem to talk about, is observable?
> I would be happy to run that case and see what
> we could do about it.
> 
> 
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                               
>            
>                       <Patrick.Stickler                       
>                                                               
>            
>                       @nokia.com>              To:       Jos 
> De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA                        
>             
>                                                cc:       
> <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <phayes@ihmc.us>, 
> <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>,             
>                       2003-08-27 01:44          
> <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>                                  
>                          
>                       PM                       Subject:  RE: 
> pfps-06 hold off?                                             
>             
>                                                               
>                                                               
>            
>                                                               
>                                                               
>            
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the .NET and Xerces APIs responsible for the *creation*
> of the invalid lexical forms?
> 
> I.e., is there really a problem with using common XML tools
> to scrape XML content and generate valid RDF?
> 
> It seems that the real problem is simply that RDF applications
> that base their RDF/XML validation on tools that operate
> using XML criteria are falling short of the line.
> 
> Please, let's keep distinct the generation of versus validation
> of RDF/XML.
> 
> I would be very surprised if any of the mentioned tools are
> actually generating invalid lexical forms.
> 
> Applications transferring data from an XML to an RDF context
> could likely use such tools to normalize lexical forms before
> creating any RDF/XML or interacting with an RDF graph API.
> 
> Can you clarify whether .NET is generating invalid lexical
> forms, or simply failing to identify them.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Patrick
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com]
> > Sent: 27 August, 2003 14:26
> > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> > Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere);
> > phayes@ihmc.us;
> > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off?
> >
> >
> >
> > Patrick - it's not only Xerces. Also all of the .NET support I'm
> > aware of is in that way, e.g. for
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifest
> > we always get
> >
> > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifes
> > t.rdf#whitespace-facet-4>
> >   <#proofFound_NegativeEntailmentTest_RDF> <#FAIL>.
> > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifes
> > t.rdf#whitespace-facet-3>
> >   <#proofFound_PositiveEntailmentTest_RDF> <#PASS>.
> > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifes
> > t.rdf#whitespace-facet-2>
> >   <#proofFound_NegativeEntailmentTest_RDF> <#FAIL>.
> > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifes
> > t.rdf#whitespace-facet-1>
> >   <#proofFound_NegativeEntailmentTest_RDF> <#FAIL>.
> > wether we use MS .NET, pnet, mono (or Xerces).
> >
> >
> > I've done an attempt to stop this behaviour but gave up as
> > it was becoming a mess in conjunction with the fact that
> > in our impl the lexical value and/or the datatype uri could
> > be variables in our implementation (e.g. " 33 "^^?D).
> > I'm trusting those assemblies/libraries/jars and don't
> > see a cost/benefit argument in alternatives.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                       <Patrick.Stickler@
> >
> >
> >                       nokia.com>                To:
> > <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <phayes@ihmc.us>,
> > <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> >                       Sent by:                  cc:
> > <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
> >
> >                       w3c-rdfcore-wg-req        Subject:  RE:
> > pfps-06 hold off?
> >
> >                       uest@w3.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                       2003-08-27 11:44
> >
> >
> >                       AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just to make a particular point: Xerces, and similar tools
> > applied to XML Schema simple datatypes, are intended for the
> > interpretation of lexical forms in an *XML Context*.
> >
> > If those tools are not suitable for interpretation of
> > lexical forms in an *RDF Context* then they are simply
> > not suitable, period, end of story, game over, move on.
> >
> > That's not to say that I am not sympathetic to RDF implementors
> > looking for the most straightforward way to add support for
> > XML Schema datatyped literals, but using the shortcomings
> > of an XML tool when applied in a context it was never intended
> > to be used in as a justification for bastardizing our design
> > is completely unacceptable to me.
> >
> > It's the tail wagging the dog, big time.
> >
> > Both the XML Schema specs and our present drafts are crystal
> > clear about what the lexical space of XML Schema simple types
> > are and what the L2V mapping involves in an RDF context.
> >
> > Unless someone presents me with overwhelming justification,
> > I will strongly oppose the inclusion of whitespace processing as
> > a part of the formal L2V mapping for RDF datatyping.
> >
> > That said, I really don't understand the problem some folks
> > have with the MAY we introduced into the latest draft. We're
> > not saying that a lexical form is valid if it requires whitespace
> > processing, only that an implementation is free to recover
> > from such *errors* gracefully if it feels that the lexical form
> > can be safely coerced to a value dispite the illegal whitespace.
> >
> > Maybe we need to state explicitly the fact that a lexical form
> > requiring whitespace processing (or any preprocessing of any kind)
> > is invalid, if some folks seem confused about that.
> >
> > Or perhaps we simply need to "punt" the issue and remove all test
> > cases involving XML Schema datatypes, so that implementations
> > can pass all test cases yet still remain free to employ smoke
> > and mirrors so they can waffle about with Xerces to process
> > technically invalid but still usable lexical forms.
> >
> > But adding whitespace processing to the formal L2V mapping
> > just because Xerces is not RDF-savvy is just plain dumb.
> >
> > [Apologies if my views offend anyone]
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> > > Sent: 27 August, 2003 12:28
> > > To: 'ext pat hayes'; Brian McBride
> > > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> > > Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ext pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
> > > > Sent: 27 August, 2003 04:16
> > > > To: Brian McBride
> > > > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Re: pfps-06 hold off?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Pat,
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm wondering whether we should hold off your following up
> > > > pfps on pfps-06 as:
> > > > >
> > > > >   1) the xml schema lex 2 val mapping may be about to change
> > >
> > > Honestly, Brian, I'm wondering how this could happen. We do
> > > not define the XML Schema L2V mapping, and the XML Schema
> > > specs are quite clear that the L2V mapping does *not* include
> > > whitespace processing, so I remain very puzzled at your
> > > suggestion that this could change.
> > >
> > > All that we could do ourselves would be to say that the RDF
> > > L2V mapping, for XML Schema datatypes, includes the whitespace
> > > processing, but such a position creates such blatant dependencies
> > > and other nastiness in our design that simply thinking about
> > > such a thing happening makes my ass start to twitch.
> > >
> > > Can you please, if possible, clarify what basis you have for
> > > suggesting that the XML Schema L2V mapping might change, or
> > > that the RDF L2V mapping would not be the same for XML Schema
> > > datatypes as defined by XML Schema?
> > >
> > > The few comments that we have recieved from implementors regarding
> > > the looseness of the Xerces implementation does not IMO even
> > > begin to justify any such changes.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 08:16:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:42 EDT