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 15:19:17 +0100
Message-ID: <47E27265.50807@w3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

I still need to understand something in your arguments.

Let us take this RDFa:

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
   <div about="http://a.b.c" property="q:r"><span>ABC</span></div>

Say that my implementation generates the following RDF/XML.

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="....">
    <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://a.b.c">
      <q:r rdf:parseType="Literal"><span 

Note that the content of the <q:r> is _not_ canonicalized XML, because I 
use xmlns='...' instead of xmlns="...". So my questions

1. Is this RDF/XML portion, in your view, valid RDF/XML?
2. Is this output conformant with the RDFa syntax definition?

My claim is that the answer on both questions are 'yes'. And, in my 
view, the RDFa syntax document should make that clear.


Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>>  maybe we should wait for Ben to see what he wanted; I think what he gave
>>  is two serializations of the same Graph, which included an XML Literal.
> Once again...that is assuming that it is possible to serialise the
> same graph in two different ways.
>>  More to the point. What I would like to understand (because, frankly, I
>>  do not) *what* is, in your view, what should appear (1) in a revised
>>  RDFa syntax document and (2) in the test cases (which was the original
>>  comment of Johannes)?
> I feel the same way, though...I'm no longer sure what you are arguing.
> I said in response to Johannes that we needed to be clearer about our
> XML literal support, but the problem with that is that it requires the
> processor to do quite a bit of work.
> I thought that you and Ben were saying that this is unnecessary, and
> that all an RDFa parser had to do was to store the mark-up unchanged.
> So since then, I thought we have been discussing whether that is a
> correct interpretation of XML literals in the RDF Concepts document.
> However, in your other email you said:
>> - an informative note may have to be added to the syntax text warning
>> implementers that they have to add the necessary namespaces
> But that is hardly a side issue...it's the very thing we're
> discussing--that is canonicalisation.
> So if you are now saying that in order to support rdf:XMLLiterals, we
> need to point out that the RDF graph produced by an RDFa parser would
> have XML literals in, which *by definition* are in Exclusive
> Canonicalised Form, then I can live with that.
> I'm increasingly convinced that we should stay away from XML literals,
> but if the group is happy with this answer, then let's go with it. My
> point is simply that if we are going to 'do' XML literals, they need
> to be done properly.
> Regards,
> Mark


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 14:19:43 UTC

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