RE: XML literals

I support Pat's proposal (credited to Peter).


However, I would like to detail the small amendment that Pat alluded to in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0021.html
[[
but can  be thought of as the Xpath nodeset
]]

which I think should be possible to massage to the point where it addresses
Patrick's worries about lack of explicitness, and allow Frank to talk in the
primer either of XPath nodeset or canonicalized XML or both as he sees fit.

Details in line:


Pat Hayes:
> Gentlemen:
>
>
> I am completely sick of all these debates about XML literals.


+1

>
> 1. Concepts section 5.1 modified as follows (change starts at ***)
> .....
>
>
> Such content is indicated in an RDF graph using a typed literal  whose
> datatype is a special built-in datatype rdf:XMLLiteral ,  defined as
> follows.
> A URI reference for identifying this datatype
> is http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral .
> The lexical space is the set of all strings which:
> are well-balanced, self-contained XML data [ XML ];
> correspond to exclusive Canonical XML (with comments, with empty
> InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList )[XML-XC14N] ;
> when embedded between an arbitrary XML start tag and an end tag form a
> document conforming to XML Namespaces [XML-NS]
> ***
> The value space is some set of entities, called XML values, which is:
> disjoint from the lexical space
> disjoint from the value space of any XML schema datatype (refer XSD)
> disjoint from the set of Unicode character strings (refer Unicode)
> in 1:1 correspondence with the lexical space.
>

Change - delete this line (moved further down)
> The exact nature of XML values is not specified.

>
>
> The lexical-to-value mapping is a 1:1 mapping from the lexical space onto
> the value space.

*** query - I think this dangling fragment is a typo
> The value of the lexical-to-value mapping


Add:
[[
Note: While the exact nature of an XML value is not specified,
one possibility is to use an XPath nodeset [XPath] corresponding
to the lexical form. This nodeset does not include any namespace
nodes other than those that are <a href="exc-c14n#???">visibly used</a>
within the lexical form.
In such an approach, to complete the definition of the value space equality
between XPath nodesets needs to be given via exclusive XML canonicalization
[XML-XC14N].
]]

I am easy as to whether the reference to XPath 1.0 is normative or
informative.
Argument for informative is that this is merely a note.
Argument for normative is that there is a transitive normative dependency on
XPath 1.0 so perhaps we should be 'in your face' about it.


This note is, in my mind at least, adequately detailed to show that the work
could be done this way, and adequately brief to not give hostages to fortune
(and informative).

One final point is that it is an XPath nodeset, rather than an infoset,
because C14N works on the nodeset not the infoset.

Jeremy

Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 08:35:12 UTC