- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:47:15 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 06:40 PM 11/22/02 +0100, you wrote: >In the last round of specs we lost something ... between the cracks ... > >The previous round had Concepts doing more work with XML Literals. >In the last round I did not discuss the mapping from RDF/XML to an >rdf:XMLLiteral, but Dave pointed to my (non-existent) discussion ... :( > >I did have an action to propose text to Dave: I suspect he didn't see the >text which was here (two versions): > >http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/2002-10-26/rdf-concepts.htm >l#ForDave > >(also in the archive) > >On reflection, here's yet another vesion, I'll number the paras for >discussion. > >In >http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt >replace the last paragraph with: >[[ >[1] The result of a literal l from rdf:parseType="Literal" content is an >implementation dependent XML Literal. > >[2] Implementations MAY use the exclusive canonicalization with or without >comments [XC14N] of the literal text l to find the lexical form. > >[3] Implementations MAY choose to ignore namespaces that are not visibly >utilized (as defined by [XC14N]), XML comments, and aspects of an XML >document that are not reflected in the canonical form (e.g. insignificant >white space within element tags). > >[4] Implementations MAY choose to not ignore such aspects of the literal >text l. > >[5] Implementations are NOT REQUIRED to perform canonicalization >when creating an RDF graph corresponding to an RDF/XML document. > >[6] Implementations MUST preserve in the lexical form of the XML Literal the >information found in the exclusive canonicalization without comments [XC14N] >of the literal text l. > >[7] See the [RDF-CONCEPTS] section on XML Literals for further information. >]] > >[1] Constrains implementations a bit. > >[2] - [5] are all just (normative) suggestions, to leave implementors with >ideas about how to do this. They are normative in that an implementor will >know that they have satisfied their obligations if they perform [2]. Er, I think it's [6] that's normative in the respect you describe. >[6] is the only paragraph that defines the minimum requirement, but I think >it could be deleted. This would then, technically, allow an RDF >implementation to always return an empty string. Quite. Is that really acceptable? I think [6] is the entry that should be retained, and that [2]-[5] are possibly-useful discussion, in that they indicate some sufficient-but-not-necessary conditions for satisfying [6]. #g -- >Given that this is (too?) long; it could be reduced to just say [1] [2] [5] >[7]. > >The problem is that the phrasing is inevitably daunting, [6] requires some >study of an obscure recommendation to understand it. > >Jeremy ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 09:36:07 UTC