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

Re: Proposal to close reagle-01, reagle-02 (substantive)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:40:38 +0000
Message-ID: <3E6822C6.1060404@hpl.hp.com>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



Brian McBride wrote:

> At 18:16 06/03/2003 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
>> Brian, please prioritize discussion of this issue since
>> it is critical path for WebOnt.
>>
>> Proposal to close reagle-01, reagle-02.
>>
>> Summary:
>>  Use exc-c14n without comments throughout.
>>  Suggest that parser should (but not SHOULD) canonicalize.
> 
> 
> I thought we were defining the syntax and semantics of a langauge, and 
> assuming a processing model.
> 
> If this will solve the webont problem, then can we say nothing at all?  
> They just have to make sure they use a canonicalising parser?
> 
> Brian
> 


The actual changes I propose that suggest that parser should canonicalize are:

1: adding test(s) that are based on that asusmption (We have not included 
tests in the test suite that require C14N).
2: adding following note to concepts:
[[
Note: For systems which reason about RDF graphs
it is suggested that the canonicalization be
performed on XML input. The internal representation
and non-XML external representations should be
in canonical form.
]]

There is some webont resistance to the cost of c14n, and the added 
complexities they perceive. It has not helped that Pat felt a need to spell 
out the L2V mapping of rdf:XMLLiteral in the semantics doc.

By spelling out the obvious implementation we may make it clearer that 
webont implementors just do a string compare.

This text does not preclude other implementations even for reasoning systems.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 02:22:13 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:11 EDT