- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:06:53 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, public-rdf-wg Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Ivan, On 10 May 2012, at 14:04, Ivan Herman wrote: > - A.isEqualNode(B)[1] compares the notes A and B _and_ its children. Ie, it compares, among other things, the nodeName of the two document fragments Sure, but: > - the LV mapping returns the result of the following transforms on L (lexical value) > wrap L into _something_ -> xmldoc -> domdoc -> domfrag -> normalize() No. [[ Let domfrag be a DOM DocumentFragment whose childNodes attribute is equal to the childNodes attribute of domdoc's documentElement attribute ]] domfrag is a *new* document fragment that includes only the *child nodes* of domdoc's document element. It does *not* include the document element. > So I can be evil enough and wrap a lexical value into a _different_ XML element before doing the rest of the transformation for each lexical value. You can do that and there is nothing evil about it. > As a result, the values will always be different under the value space comparison. No. This gives you different domdocs, but equivalent domfrags. After normalization, they will compare equal. > It is obviously a stupid and pathological case, but the exact wording of the algorithm does not exclude that... I think you are mistaken. Best, Richard > > Ivan > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#Node3-isEqualNode > > On May 10, 2012, at 14:27 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > ---- > 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 13:07:24 UTC