W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Fwd: [closed] reagle-01 reagle-02 XMLLiterals and exc-c14n

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:54:44 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f1dbab3bd011e32@[10.0.0.19]>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

The following was sent to me in my role as chair, the comment was a 
WebOnt consensus comment, so we need to let them know if we are 
satisfied with this answer.  If anyone thinks we should not, please 
let the WG know.  If we have anyone who doesn't think this is 
sufficient, we will schedule discussion on an upcoming telecon.
  -JH




>From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
>Organization: Hewlett Packard
>To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, reagle@w3.org, eric@w3.org, hendler@cs.umd.edu
>Subject: [closed] reagle-01 reagle-02 XMLLiterals and exc-c14n
>Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 23:55:58 +0300
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0
>	tests=NOSPAM_INC,SPAM_PHRASE_03_05,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_KMAIL
>	version=2.43
>X-Spam-Level:
>
>Comments accepted.
>
>Joe, Jim, Eric,
>
>You made last call comments concerning the treatment of
>rdf:parseType="Literal" and datatype rdf:XMLLiteral in the RDF Last Call
>Working Drafts.
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-02
>
>Your emails raising the issue:
>
>Joe's original mail:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0335.html
>Jim's mail on behalf of WebOnt
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0335.html
>(see i.)
>Eric's mail:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0240.html
>
>The RDF Core WG has resolved
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0097.html
>item 13,
>
>to accept this issue and address it as proposed in
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0151.html
>
>I summarize that proposal here:
>
>1: Only reference the exclusive canonicalization rec.
>2: The syntax document specifies that the lexical form corresponding to the
>syntax rdf:parsetype="Literal"> XML content </ is the exclusive
>canonicalization with comments of that XML content. (With empty inclusive
>namespace prefix list)
>3: The concepts document specifies
>    a corresponding lexical space
>    a value space consisting of relevant exclusive canonical XML documents
>    a mapping function that is a simple string concatenation to wrap the XML
>element content in the lexical space with an rdf-wrapper start-element tag
>and end-element tag, with the xml:lang attribute, thus forming an exclusive
>canonical XML documents.
>4. The semantics document follows the concepts document
>5. the following implementation note is added to concepts:
>[[
>IMPLEMENTATION NOTE:
>This section describes an *abstract* syntax which describes
>equality of literals and equivalence of graphs. This is the
>syntax over which the formal semantics are defined.
>Implementations are free to represent literals and RDF graphs in
>any other equivalent form.  As an example:
>literals with datatype <tt>rdf:XMLLiteral</tt>s can be represented
>in a non-canonical
>format, and canonicalization performed during the comparison between two
>such literals. In this example the comparisons may be
>being performed either between syntactic structures or
>between their denotations in the domain of discourse.
>Implementations that do not require such comparisons can
>hence be optimized.
>]]
>
>Jim,
>I note you suggested
>"An example fix would be to require an RDF/XML parser to use a specific
>canonicalization on input."
>We stopped short of doing that because:
>+ some RDF applications do not need this
>+ the RDF documents do not define a processing model, and so do not define
>components such as RDF parsers
>The implementation note above is thus a part of the resolution that you may be
>least confortable with.
>
>Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating
>whether this decision is acceptable.
>
>Joe, also note that we have not yet given detailed consideration to your
>comment "Confusion about wrapping of XMLLiteral"
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0434.html
>
>Now that we have removed all freedom in the syntax document, is this
>sufficiently clear (i.e. that the wrapping happens as part of the datatype
>mapping).
>Or would you like us to consider that comment further?
>
>Thankyou all for your comments that have helped us improve the RDF documents
>as part of the last call process.
>
>Jeremy
>
-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 17:54:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT