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

Re: reagle-01, reagle-02 issues

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:35:34 -0700
Message-Id: <p05111b17ba86b9fc45cb@[]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>>I took this comment as a rhetorical question meaning, "why bother 
>>even getting into canonicalization if you have implementation 
>>variance?" and hence suggesting a fourth option, which you did not 
>>D. Ignore XML canonicalization and treat XML literals as strings, 
>>ie the L2V mapping is the identity.
>>Then the entire rdf:XMLliteral datatype machinery is just an 
>>elaborate way of encoding the old 'XML bit', which I thought was 
>>the original intent in any case. Introducing XML canonicalization 
>>seems to have been one those neat ideas that got slipped in without 
>>too much discussion and has turned out to be a tar-pit. I am 
>>particularly concerned that this ugly mess is now centrally 
>>included in the very core of RDF. I would hope that many 'cheap and 
>>cheerful' RDF engines wouldn't even want to know about XML, still 
>>less about XML canonicalization.
>This really does not meet the requirements ...
>XML parsers really really have variability, when building RDF/XML 
>parsers we have to work out how to deal with that.

I do not see why this is a central issue for us. We have said that 
the definitive RDF syntax is the graph. There is no variability in a 
graph, and that handles Webonts concerns. The issue you raise is an 
issue with XML, and I do not feel that XML's mess should be dirtying 
RDF's kitchen.

>So the simple webont examples where they want a single well-defined 
>denotation of some literal constructed with an 
>rdf:parseType="Literal" cannot be addressed simply by saying "use 
>the original string".

We can tell Webont that a given RDF graph has a single well-defined 
denotation. The issue arising from XML's variability, if real, should 
be addressed by the definition of RDF/XML

>In some real contexts there isn't a string to use (e.g. parsing a DOM tree).

I do not understand this. The RDF graph syntax is required to have a 
string in every literal. There is always a string to use.

>We could have put all the work in the parser, and then the semantics 
>could just use the string - that may be your preference, but it's 
>too late now.

I don't think it is too late.

>In practice I would expect a webont impl to work that way. However, 
>I also believe in practice that there will be cheaper parsers for 
>low footprint environments which don't do this.

If I understand you, any parser which does not do this will produce 
ambiguous RDF/XML.

Again, I disagree that it is too late to do this. We are not under 
any obligation to repair deficiencies in XML. I propose that we 
simply assert that we are not responsible for variability in XML 
parsers, and that the RDF graph is the definitive RDF syntax.



IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2003 14:35:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC