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

issue reagle-01 Re: Please review RDF Last Call

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:27:31 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030131142451.09c7ae48@localhost>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, reagle@w3.org, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, n-shiraishi@w3.org

Recorded as

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01

Brian

At 14:47 30/01/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

[...]


> > I presume that the reason you even care how the xml-literal is represented
> > is that you will want to compare RDF instances (which might contain
> > xml-literals) to see if they are identical at some point? If that's the
> > case, then won't you want the character/octet representation of XML within
> > a RDF representation to be equivalent as well? For example, if you are
> > comparing two RDF blobs for identity, you wouldn't want the two
> > xml-literals to be different because one implementation cared about
> > comments and the other didn't...?
>
>This is a good point. Brian please assign an issue number.
>
>Initially the goal of working on XML Literals was simply to get visibly used
>namespaces to work at all. This goal is achieved; but for certain
>applications we have not achieved interoperability.
>
> > First, again, what purpose is a canonicalization even serving if you are
> > likely to get implementation variances?
>
>It *is* an improvement on where we used to be!
>So, there is quite a lot of clarity as to what the contract is, but we have
>tried to remember the more casual implementor.
>If an implementor decides they only want to partially support these literals,
>they could choose say to always bind  the default namespace to xhtml and not
>support any other binding. The string for the literal is then essentially a
>copy straight out of the input document.
>Other users need the precision that you talk about - which as you point 
>out we
>haven't delivered.
>
>Hmmm ... I will try and defend the decisions we have made a bit more.
>
>The fundamental problem we are addressing is *how* to repesent XML content
>within an RDF graph. This XML content originates from an RDF/XML document,
>but, that original context gets lost. Thus we face a number of problems
>familiar in exc-c14n, what to do about entities?, what to do about visibly
>used namespaces? what to do with namespaces that are present but not visibly
>used? These issues are the pressing ones that are addressed by the Last Call
>docs. A further issue of making sure that two different implementations get
>exactly the same answer was not one that we felt it necessary to address.
>I will ask the WG to reconsider whether this was correct as part of the LC
>process.
>
> > > This behaviour is conformant but not required.
>To the RDF Last Call documents.
>
>Thanks for your comments, Brian should assign an issue number concerning the
>implementation variability, Pat should follow up on the misleading wording
>about the xsd namespace in semantics.
>
>Jeremy
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 09:26:27 GMT

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