W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks]

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 11:28:10 -0800
Message-ID: <4D7531CA.8040006@topquadrant.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

The motivation in the 1999 M&S spec, and the 2004 Recs for XML Literals 
were to do with I18N use cases involving HTML (and in some of them Ruby)

I believe that for at least some of these use cases we would now 
recommend RDFa.

I think there are some use cases that are not addressed by RDFa.

Once you take the use cases seriously, then you end up somewhere not a 
million miles away from the current specs, with all their problems.

I suspect an underlying error in the 2002-2004 work was the following 
incorrect reasoning:
- it is important for RDF to carry rich text literals (e.g. involving 
Ruby markup)
- it is important to be able to tell if two RDF fragments are the same
Hence:
- it is important to be able to compare two rich text literals in RDF 
[It is this that leads to the XC14N dance]

Jeremy


On 3/7/2011 5:35 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2011, at 14:25 , RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/13
>>
>> Raised by: Andy Seaborne
>> On product: Cleanup tasks
>>
>> RDF Concepts:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral
>>
>> RDF Syntax:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-XML-literals
>>
>> The lexical space of RDF XML Literals is XML fragments which are required to be "exclusive canonical XML".  The lexical space and the value space are in 1-1 correspondence. The rules are quite complicated. These rules for canonicalization apply to the lexical form; equality testing can be done using string compare.
>>
>> Canonicalization rules include no use of<tag/>  and that attributes must be in sorted order (this is not an exhaustive list).
>>
>> A consequence of this is that many correct XML fragments are not legal as XML Literals because they do not correspond to exclusive canonicalization.
>>
>> Possible cleanup includes partially relaxing the lexical space restrictions while retaining the value space so that fragments can be used as XML literals without complex processing.
>>
> +10^infinite
>
> I know of no RDF serializers around that would produce correct XML Literals in this sense. They all produce valid XML, with hopefully the right namespace declarations (though that does not always happen either) but they certainly do not necessarily go through the extra mile of canonicalization. And there is no reason for that either: canonicalization comes into place when two XML fragments must be compared as strings; but this should be done in value space and not in lexical space...
>
> Ivan
>
>> RDF XML Literals are the only datatype hard wired into RDF.
>>
>> If a Turtle document is to be validated, will that require access to an XML parser and canonicalization engine?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 19:28:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC