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

RE: Proposal to close reagle-01 reagle-02

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:01:40 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90C26@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 31 March, 2003 12:56
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal to close reagle-01 reagle-02
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <snip />
> >
> > I'm presuming that this is a requirement on the output of an RDF
> > parser, from which the lexical form is actually interned in a given
> > system (graph) and not a requirement on a human being who may be
> > creating XML literal lexical forms in an RDF/XML serialization
> > using a plain text editor.
> 
> Correct.

Whew... ;-)

> You appear to find a misreading in which the lexical form = 
> the literal text
> l and both are requried to be exclusive canonical XML.

Yes. This is my mis-reading, though if it really is a mis-reading,
it shouldn't have been, rather the text *should* have read that
way ;-)

IMO, what the author specifies *is* a lexical form. Whether
or not that lexical form is mapped to some canonical lexical
form, such as for XML literals, is a separate issue.

Thus, I see no difference between "literal text" and "lexical
form". Those are different terms for the same thing.

Best to have wording that states clearly that whatever lexical
form exists in the RDF/XML serialization, it is mapped to
an exclusive XML canonical lexical form by the parser and
the graph only contains canonical lexical forms for XML literals
(unlike other literals, for which lexical forms are just passed
through unmodified).

> Dave do you want to make editorial changes to the agreed 
> text, or would you
> like me to propose some variations. A very simple one might 
> be to s/E/e/
> s/C/c/ and then link "exclusive XML canonicalization" to the 
> right part of
> XML-XC14N.

I went back to see how 'lexical form' versus 'literal text'
was used, and still don't see any clear distinction. It may
be there, but I don't see it (not that I think there should
be any distinction anway, but... ;-)

I think there needs to be a simple, short, but clear comment
that canonicalization is done by the parser, and that XML
literals in RDF/XML serializations need not be canonicalized.

Having the discussion of canonicalization in the section on
grammar productions for RDF/XML strongly suggests to me that
it is relevant to the RDF/XML. Perhaps it simply should be
moved out of that section entirely, and added in an appendix
or elsewhere, where it is not right in the heart of the 
RDF/XML grammar specification, since it has nothing to do with
the RDF/XML grammar itself. In fact, I would almost go so far
as to suggest that the syntax spec should simply reference
the concepts spec -- since canonicalization is strictly a matter
of the graph syntax, not the RDF/XML syntax.

(but a short note clarifying no canonicalization for RDF/XML
is required would be enough to satisfy me ;-)

Patrick
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 06:01:46 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:16 EDT