W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Made rdf:HTML/XMLLiteral non-normative

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:28:42 +0000
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <28134973-EEAF-40A9-A29F-8A1E9D3DE0D3@cyganiak.de>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
On 17 Dec 2013, at 19:29, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>> I don't know if the first option is viable, because no normative
>> definition can depend on anything informative, so we might just end up
>> pushing the problem deeper and deeper.
> As far as I can see, there are no normative definitions depending on these.

Okay, looking through the other documents I agree they’re all fine.

>> If both implementations use the informative L2V mapping currently in
>> the spec, then they *are* fully interoperable.
> Right, but the same applies to just about everything.

Well, no. For example, if one implementation keeps its old behaviour from RDF 2004, and the other implements an 1:1 L2V mapping, then they would be incompatible.

>> Given how stable the DOM is, this seems like a rather
>> theoretical possibility. Regardless, W3C procedure clearly prevents us
>> from normatively referencing DOM4 before it hits Rec.
> The same was said about promises which then required us to go through a
> second last call with JSON-LD and finally make the API non-normative.

I know. All the options I listed make the DOM4 reference informative, to avoid this kind of scenario.

> I still believe the right thing to do would be to simply drop the
> two statements in section 5.4 and be done with it:
>  1. If the IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral
>     is recognized then it refers to the datatype rdf:XMLLiteral;
>  2. If the IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#HTML is 
>     recognized then it refers to the datatype rdf:HTML;

I can’t live with the complete removal of the HTML and XMLLiteral IRIs from that section. Readers will go to the section on “datatype IRIs” and to the definition of “recognized datatype IRI” to look for the requirements regarding datatype support, and can expect to find all datatype IRIs assigned by the RDF specs mentioned there.

I also think that omitting rationale for the non-normativity of the two datatypes would be a mistake, as it sends a wrong message.

I’ve stated what I believe is the cleanest way to avoid these two problems, so will just repeat the link:

I suppose it could also be done by adding a couple of notes to all the affected subsections. Do you think that would be better?

Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 20:29:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC