W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Possible solutions for ISSUE 97

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:07:01 +0100
Message-ID: <47E22935.8050709@w3.org>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org


Ben Adida wrote:
> 
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>> So however people reply to this view-point, they need to make some
>> reference to RDF Concepts, and say why my interpretation *of that* is
>> wrong.
> 
> I think you're framing the problem incorrectly and torturing yourself 
> into more complexity than needed.
> 
> But instead of writing another massive email, let me try to identify 
> where, in the logical flow, we disagree with one another.
> 
> In your flow, here's where I disagree:
> 
>>   (1) we run the RDFa parser on an input document,
>>   (*) the output of the RDFa parser is RDF
>>   (2) we take the output of the parser and stuff it into a triple store,
>>   (3) we SPARQL against the triple store.
> 
> Step (*) is imprecise, in my opinion; it mixes abstract and concrete. 
> The output of an RDFa parser is, IMO, *a serialization of an RDF graph*. 
> That is the key difference, because the "RDF Concepts" definition of 
> XMLLiteral applies to the abstract graph, not to all of the graph's 
> valid serializations.
> 
> Now, help me understand where you disagree with my reasoning. Here are 
> two RDF N3 *serializations*:
> 
> <> dc:title
> "<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
>   foo <b xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">bar</b>
> </div>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
> 
> and
> 
> <> dc:title
> "<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
>   foo <b>bar</b>
> </div>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
> 
> 
> If I'm reading the XMLLiteral canonicalization process correctly, I 
> believe that the two examples above are serializations of the same RDF 
> graph.
> 

Exactly.

Except that... I am not sure that all RDF implementations do implement 
this correctly (I checked the RDFLib parser and it does not). But, as 
far as I know, Jena implements canonical serialization as part of its 
parser.

And what dictates at this point is _not_ the RDF Concept document only, 
but the RDF/XML syntax specification that does not require to have 
serialization done on the XML 'text' itself.

Ivan



> Do you agree? If not, why not?
> 
> -Ben
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 09:07:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:56 UTC