- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:43:43 +0200
- To: "<Patrick.Stickler" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, phayes@ihmc.us, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
For example in the testcase does :Jenny :age "33"^^xsd:integer. rdf:, xsd:integer entail :Jenny :age " 33 "^^?D. (but I should have better written :Jenny :age " 33 "^^_:D. here in RDFCore) and our answer is :Jenny :age " 33 "^^xsd:integer. (She's getting quite old, isn't it? ;-)) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ <Patrick.Stickler @nokia.com> To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA cc: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <phayes@ihmc.us>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, 2003-08-27 02:16 <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> PM Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off? Where is " 33 "^^?D coming from in your implementation? What is generating it? Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com] > Sent: 27 August, 2003 15:10 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); > phayes@ihmc.us; > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off? > > > > I don't understand what you are talking about. > Could you please provide a test case where > the issue you seem to talk about, is observable? > I would be happy to run that case and see what > we could do about it. > > > -- > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > > > > > > <Patrick.Stickler > > > @nokia.com> To: Jos > De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA > > cc: > <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <phayes@ihmc.us>, > <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, > 2003-08-27 01:44 > <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> > > PM Subject: RE: > pfps-06 hold off? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are the .NET and Xerces APIs responsible for the *creation* > of the invalid lexical forms? > > I.e., is there really a problem with using common XML tools > to scrape XML content and generate valid RDF? > > It seems that the real problem is simply that RDF applications > that base their RDF/XML validation on tools that operate > using XML criteria are falling short of the line. > > Please, let's keep distinct the generation of versus validation > of RDF/XML. > > I would be very surprised if any of the mentioned tools are > actually generating invalid lexical forms. > > Applications transferring data from an XML to an RDF context > could likely use such tools to normalize lexical forms before > creating any RDF/XML or interacting with an RDF graph API. > > Can you clarify whether .NET is generating invalid lexical > forms, or simply failing to identify them. > > Thanks, > > Patrick > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ext Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com] > > Sent: 27 August, 2003 14:26 > > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > > Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); > > phayes@ihmc.us; > > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > > Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off? > > > > > > > > Patrick - it's not only Xerces. Also all of the .NET support I'm > > aware of is in that way, e.g. for > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifest > > we always get > > > > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifes > > t.rdf#whitespace-facet-4> > > <#proofFound_NegativeEntailmentTest_RDF> <#FAIL>. > > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifes > > t.rdf#whitespace-facet-3> > > <#proofFound_PositiveEntailmentTest_RDF> <#PASS>. > > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifes > > t.rdf#whitespace-facet-2> > > <#proofFound_NegativeEntailmentTest_RDF> <#FAIL>. > > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/Manifes > > t.rdf#whitespace-facet-1> > > <#proofFound_NegativeEntailmentTest_RDF> <#FAIL>. > > wether we use MS .NET, pnet, mono (or Xerces). > > > > > > I've done an attempt to stop this behaviour but gave up as > > it was becoming a mess in conjunction with the fact that > > in our impl the lexical value and/or the datatype uri could > > be variables in our implementation (e.g. " 33 "^^?D). > > I'm trusting those assemblies/libraries/jars and don't > > see a cost/benefit argument in alternatives. > > > > > > -- > > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > > > > > > > > > > > > <Patrick.Stickler@ > > > > > > nokia.com> To: > > <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <phayes@ihmc.us>, > > <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > > Sent by: cc: > > <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> > > > > w3c-rdfcore-wg-req Subject: RE: > > pfps-06 hold off? > > > > uest@w3.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2003-08-27 11:44 > > > > > > AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to make a particular point: Xerces, and similar tools > > applied to XML Schema simple datatypes, are intended for the > > interpretation of lexical forms in an *XML Context*. > > > > If those tools are not suitable for interpretation of > > lexical forms in an *RDF Context* then they are simply > > not suitable, period, end of story, game over, move on. > > > > That's not to say that I am not sympathetic to RDF implementors > > looking for the most straightforward way to add support for > > XML Schema datatyped literals, but using the shortcomings > > of an XML tool when applied in a context it was never intended > > to be used in as a justification for bastardizing our design > > is completely unacceptable to me. > > > > It's the tail wagging the dog, big time. > > > > Both the XML Schema specs and our present drafts are crystal > > clear about what the lexical space of XML Schema simple types > > are and what the L2V mapping involves in an RDF context. > > > > Unless someone presents me with overwhelming justification, > > I will strongly oppose the inclusion of whitespace processing as > > a part of the formal L2V mapping for RDF datatyping. > > > > That said, I really don't understand the problem some folks > > have with the MAY we introduced into the latest draft. We're > > not saying that a lexical form is valid if it requires whitespace > > processing, only that an implementation is free to recover > > from such *errors* gracefully if it feels that the lexical form > > can be safely coerced to a value dispite the illegal whitespace. > > > > Maybe we need to state explicitly the fact that a lexical form > > requiring whitespace processing (or any preprocessing of any kind) > > is invalid, if some folks seem confused about that. > > > > Or perhaps we simply need to "punt" the issue and remove all test > > cases involving XML Schema datatypes, so that implementations > > can pass all test cases yet still remain free to employ smoke > > and mirrors so they can waffle about with Xerces to process > > technically invalid but still usable lexical forms. > > > > But adding whitespace processing to the formal L2V mapping > > just because Xerces is not RDF-savvy is just plain dumb. > > > > [Apologies if my views offend anyone] > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > > > Sent: 27 August, 2003 12:28 > > > To: 'ext pat hayes'; Brian McBride > > > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > > > Subject: RE: pfps-06 hold off? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ext pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us] > > > > Sent: 27 August, 2003 04:16 > > > > To: Brian McBride > > > > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > > > > Subject: Re: pfps-06 hold off? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Pat, > > > > > > > > > >I'm wondering whether we should hold off your following up > > > > pfps on pfps-06 as: > > > > > > > > > > 1) the xml schema lex 2 val mapping may be about to change > > > > > > Honestly, Brian, I'm wondering how this could happen. We do > > > not define the XML Schema L2V mapping, and the XML Schema > > > specs are quite clear that the L2V mapping does *not* include > > > whitespace processing, so I remain very puzzled at your > > > suggestion that this could change. > > > > > > All that we could do ourselves would be to say that the RDF > > > L2V mapping, for XML Schema datatypes, includes the whitespace > > > processing, but such a position creates such blatant dependencies > > > and other nastiness in our design that simply thinking about > > > such a thing happening makes my ass start to twitch. > > > > > > Can you please, if possible, clarify what basis you have for > > > suggesting that the XML Schema L2V mapping might change, or > > > that the RDF L2V mapping would not be the same for XML Schema > > > datatypes as defined by XML Schema? > > > > > > The few comments that we have recieved from implementors regarding > > > the looseness of the Xerces implementation does not IMO even > > > begin to justify any such changes. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 09:04:45 UTC