RE: xmlsch-02 whitespace facet discussion

I vote for option A.

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 14 April, 2003 21:41
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: xmlsch-02 whitespace facet discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This issue is ...
> [[
> Some members of the XML Schema WG have expressed concern that XML
>     Schema's rules for whitespace handling may interfere with expected
>     behavior in other contexts. This may be the appropriate 
> place to bring
>     this question up.
> ]]
> etc
> 
> see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMa
> r/0489.html
> part 1.2
> 
> My understanding is that RDF datatyping does *not* use XML 
> Schema rules for 
> whitespace processing (since they are not part of the 
> lexical2value mapping 
> as expressed in XSD).
> 
> examples:
> 
> <rdf:Description>
>   <eg:p1 rdf:datatype="&xsd;int">    1    </eg:p1>
>   <eg:p2 rdf:datatype="&xsd;int">1</eg:p2>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> Descibes a resource with two properties eg:p2 has an integer 
> value (1), 
> whereas eg:p1 does not have but is an ill-formed typed literal.
> 
> It seems to me that the whitespace handling of RDF is often 
> misunderstood, 
> e.g. today I was passed an example by a co-author which 
> incorrectly expected 
> whitespace trimming of values.
> 
> 
> I think we could go in either of two directions:
> 
> A: accept the comment
> "worried that it may not be
>     obvious that the whitespace processing is not part of the 
> process of
>     checking lexical forms for type validity," and add test cases to 
> demonstrate that whitespace is significant even inside typed 
> literals of 
> types which in a XML Schema context would get processed away 
> (such as the 
> integer examples)
> 
> 
> B: accept the comment, amd moreover we think it will be less 
> confusing to 
> follow the XML Schema whitespace facet and the RDF L2V 
> mapping is the mapping 
> of:
>    1) apply the relevant whitepsace processing rules according to the 
> whitespace facet
>   2) apply the XSD L2V mapping
> with corresponding changes to the lexical space.
> 
> This would change the eg:p1 eg:p2 example (above) so that 
> both properties had 
> the same value.
> 
> thoughts?
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 03:01:40 UTC