W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Please review RDF Last Call

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:00:13 +0100
To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <200301280800.13258.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

This is a formal request from RDF Core to I18N WG to review
the six RDF Last Call Working Drafts listed at:
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#documents


We are particularly interested in your thoughts on our use of XML 
Canonicalization to assist with defining the meaning of embedding fragments 
of XML within RDF.

This topic is discussed in the following documents:


RDF Concepts
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/

#section-Datatypes  
#section-XMLLiteral 
#section-Graph-Literal


RDF Syntax
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/

#section-Syntax-XML-literals
#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt
#literal 

(see note below)


RDF Semantics
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
#rdfinterp 
#dtype_interp

RDF Test Cases
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/
#ntriples  is probably worth reading.
Search for /xml-literal/   (2 tests)

A specific point is to do with the use of exclusive canonicalization in RDF 
Syntax. We have chosen to leave it as implementation dependent whether or not 
XML comments are significant, and also which not-visibly-used namespaces are 
preserved (your InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList). For instance, my own 
implementation treats any namespace that is explicitly redeclared (or 
declared for the first time) on an XML element as significant, even though 
such redeclaration information is not available in the XPath Nodeset. This 
behaviour is conformant but not required.


thanks for your help


Jeremy Carroll
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 01:59:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT