Re: Closing ISSUE-13

Ivan,

On 10 May 2012, at 09:11, Ivan Herman wrote:
> (First of all, I explicitly cc this to Arnaud; he was one of the co-editors of the DOM3 spec, it would be good if he could review that to be on the safe side...)

+1!

> the only thing I am uncertain about is that issue about the arbitrary XML tag enclosing the whole thing. We clearly need that, but how does that exactly affect the algorithm?

The thing with the arbitrary enclosing start and end tag was taken straight from RDF 2004. It's in the definition of the lexical space.

> After all, A.isEqualNode(B) compares the nodes' names; if different arbitrary enclosing terms are used, then this will return False, although our intention is to say True...

But A.isEqualNode(B) compares the *values*, and the values are the result of applying the L2V mapping, and the L2V mapping returns only the *child nodes* of the document element. So the arbitrary element that we created is *not* being compared; only the list of its children is compared.

> Somehow the lexical-to-value mapping algorithm has to keep track, when creating xmldoc, whether such a wrapper element has been added to the original literal or not.

I'm not sure what you mean. If the original literal already is properly wrapped in matching start and end tags (that is, it's already a well-formed XML document, not just an XML fragment), then the phrasing as is just wraps it into another element. Everything should still work.
> 
> I am not sure what the best way of handling that is. Maybe, conceptually, that top level wrapping element is a predefined RDF element, and must be used only when there is no wrapping element in the original lexical form in the first place.

I'm not sure what problem this would solve.

> (In any case, this is not something the author of the RDF content should see.)

They don't.

Best,
Richard



> 
> Ivan 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 9, 2012, at 20:12 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> Dave, all,
>> 
>> I have updated the RDF Concepts ED according to today's resolution. Please review.
>> 
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-XMLLiteral
>> 
>> RDF Semantics still needs to be updated accordingly (make rdf:XMLLiteral optional and interpret it only under D-Entailment, like any other datatype).
>> 
>> I've taken the liberty to create an action (on a randomly chosen RDF Semantics editor):
>> 
>> https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/170
>> 
>> No objection to the status change.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9 May 2012, at 17:45, David Wood wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Today, we resolved [1]:
>>> [[
>>> RESOLVED: in RDF 1.1: [a] XMLLiterals are optional; [b] lexical space consists of well-formed XML fragments; [c] the canonical lexical form is http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/, as defined in RDF 2004; [d] the value space consists of (normalized) DOM trees.
>>> ]]
>>> 
>>> Richard's proposal [2], that evolved into this resolution, was meant to close ISSUE-13 [3].  So, I have changed the status of ISSUE-13 to "pending approval" and suggest that the implementation of this resolution be considered editorial in nature.
>>> 
>>> Any objections?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-09#resolution_1
>>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0006.html
>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/13
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 12:27:27 UTC