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

Re: sketch of new proposal reagle-01 reagle-02 tex-??

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:39:36 +0000
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <18553.1047638376@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Jeremy Carroll said:

<snip/>

> Clarification:
> in section 6
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-Data-Model
> replace:
> [[This specification does not require that N-Triples be used to represent 
> an RDF Graph.]]
> 
> by
> [[
> This specification permits any
> <a href="rdf-concepts#implementation-note">representation</a>
> of an RDF Graph (see [RDF Concepts]); in particular, it
> does not require the use of N-Triples.
> ]]


Fine.

<snip/>

> >>Concepts
> >>=======
> >>
> > 
> > In http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-XMLLiteral
> > 
> > 
> >>+  change lexical space of rdf:XMLLiteral to be strings that are root eleme
    nt
> >>content of canonical XML documents
> >>
> > 
> > how about: 
> >   strings that are the contents of the root element of canonical XML docume
    nts
> > 
> 
> 
> I was thinking along the lines of first defining value space and the 
> mapping and then
> [[
> The lexical space is the set of
> (string value) pairs that map into the value space.
> ]]
> It's sort of cheating.

Yes, it is cute :) but it probably doesn't help people more familiar
from the XML side of things rather than datatype mappings.  The
existing explanation does OK but I was just rewording the sentence to
be more linear:
  content-of root-element-of canonical-XML-documents(*)

(*) for some canonical


<snip/>

> Any suggestions as to how - it currently comes right after the first 
> occurrences.
> I guess I could change the value space bullet point from
> [[
> Have root element tag: <rdf-wrapper>
> ]]
> to
> [[
> Have the fixed but arbitrary root element: <rdf-wrapper>
> ]]


Better.

> 
> (One of the xmlschema editorial comments (2.5 in msg 0489) is to delete "tag")
Yes, that would work.


<snip/>

> The editorial problem is that the inclusive C14N spec defines the term 
> "canonical XML" which is actually quite useful in defining the value space.
> There is no equivalent term in EXC-C14N. The document:
> 
> <rdf-wrapper xml:lang="">
>   <eg:a xmlns:eg="eg:a" xmlns:unused="eg:b"></eg:a>
> </rdf-wrapper>
> 
> 
> is canonical XML, but not in the corresponding set for exc-c14n.
> Choices are:
> - use term from inclusive C14N, and modify it (illustrated by my text)
> - use only terminology from exc-c14n and construct the concept we really want.

Maybe ask the appropriate XML WG (xml digsig?) for which one?
I'd prefer the latter choice for now since we are using exc-c14n.

Dave
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 05:45:50 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:13 EDT