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

On 10/03/11 07:39, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> On 3/9/2011 10:03 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> The question is whether it is ok to put this kind of load on all
>> processes producing RDF. Because, clearly, this is not only on RDFa,
>> but on any other process thata dumps data into RDF.
>>
>> Though c14n is not very complicated per se, it is not simple in
>> practice. People may use off the shelf XML libraries to serialize a
>> subtree and if that library does not canonicalize (and very few do),
>> then users may have a problem... There fewer parser writers than data
>> producers...
>>
>> I would say this should be revisited if possible.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>
> I think the issue is where do we expect XMLLiterals to arise:
>
> a) from RDF/XML => 2004 soln is good
> b) from general code migrating legacy data into RDF without going via
> RDF/XML => 2004 soln is not good
>
> I agree that c14n is not easily available to typical XML programmers;
> however for RDF/XML parser writers this is not a burden.
> Any other format could mandate that XMLLiterals get canonicalized on
> input. e.g. Turtle could specify that
> "<foo/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
> actually means
> "<foo></foo>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
> (I think that is correct ...)
> Alternatively triple stores could be responsible for canonicalizing.
> Or we canonicalize in the mapping to value space, hence in the equality
> algorithm (design rejected in 2003 last call)

Why was that?  Was it just because RDF/XML was the only format so it's 
not unreasonable to put in the parsing step.

>
> Jeremy

"actually means" -> the value in the value space.

If a system handles rdf:XMLLiteral as values, it will need an XML 
parser.   c.f. if it handled integers as values it needs an "integer 
parser" to sort out "00123"^^xsd:integer and 123

	Andy

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 09:06:16 UTC