W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

RE: weekly call for agenda items

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:01:57 +0100
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Replying to both Patrick messages in one go.
> I find this root tag a rather ugly hack


> that seems unnecessary, if we
> take the value space to be the set of infosets,

equality is not defined on infosets.

> which would (magically)
> include the specified xml:lang value at their root scope.
> I really would like to see the root tag treatment go away. I think it
> will confuse alot of folks and is rather kludgy.

The earlier treatment had it but in a slightly less in-your-face manner. On
reflection I think the hoops that treatment jumped were more likely to
confuse, and being blunt, kludgy and ugly gains clarity.
At some level we inherited something that wasn't clear - we have made it
clear. If we were to start from scratch we would not have the rdf-wrapper,
e.g. change rdf:parseType="Literal" to be
 <eg:prop parseType="Literal" >
   <!--whitespace comment or PI -->
     <!-- just one element allowed, being the root element of the
       corresponding value.
   <!--whitespace comment or PI -->

We still have the problems associated with invisibly used namespaces and
xml:lang scoping.

> Also, I think more folks will be able to relate to an infoset rather
> than a canonical serialization.

Another problem with infoset is which one?
In your other message you talk about Post Schema Validation Infoset, which
since we don't have a schema, presents particular difficulties ...

Also, Infoset includes a lot of things which we currently don't do, e.g.
entities are preserved, all namespace attributes are preserved. (Does
Infoset include document initial whitespace, or the XML declaration?)

> Of course, I don't myself think that an xml:lang attribute in an
> RDF/XML instance should infect an XML Literal as the literal is not
> part of the RDF language and is only there as XML as a convenience
> but not for any semantic reason, but...
> (i.e. XML literals should be treated as other literals where the
> lang tag, if present, does not affect the denotation of the literal)

Just put a rdf:parseType="Literal" in a chat or shopping example. The
langtag needs to be there.

Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 04:02:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC