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.

Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 02:22:13 UTC

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