- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:56:37 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I think Jeremy's #2 risks putting off a large number of potential RDF uses. I think that keeping the cost of entry low is vital. #g -- At 04:06 PM 2/24/03 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >(Note reagle-01 has also been submitted as part of the webont consensus >review). > >These issues concern the design of rdf:XMLLiteral and >rdf:parseType="Literal". > >Reagle reviewed on behalf of the C14N group (Digital Signatures). >I had indicated that we were seeking expert feedback as to how well we had >used their work. > >Reagle suggested: >- we should use the same type of C14N throughout - I think this was intended >for clarity - it is difficult to assess what our solution does with its mix >of both exc-C14N and incl-C14N. >- to remove implementation variability > >WebOnt >- request removing implementation variability from RDF/XML thru to domain of >discourse >- suggest removing all implementation variability (as an example of how to >satisfy request) > >====== > >I see the choice space as: > >1: Leave things as they are >2: Choose a form X of canonicalization, > require parser to implement X > define lexical to value mapping as X >3: Choose a form X of canonicalization > define lexical to value mapping as X > leave text in Syntax largely unchanged (except use X in place of current >"exclusive canonicalization without comments"). This allows cheap and >cheerful parsers that do not canonicalize. > >===== >3 is now my preference - I realise it needs expansion, but before I do that >I wish to list pros and cons, and get feedback from WG. >===== > >Consider three use cases: >A) cheap and cheerful RDF impl using embedded XHTML >B) OWL or other semantically advanced use where it is desired that >representation in domain of discourse is not implementation dependent. >C) Embedding XSLT document inside and rdf:XMLLiteral (hence requiring >support for preservation of not visibly used namespaces) > > >1: >A - works >B - doesn't really work, because of comments and not visibly used namespaces >C - might work depending on having an implementation that knows when to >preserve not visibly used namespaces > >2: >A: expensive >B: works >C: does not work > >3: >A: works >B: works >C: does not work > >i.e. our current position works non-interoperably for XSLT in RDF - a use >case that we have not seen, and that is its only advantage over soln 3 which >interoperably does not work for XSLT in RDF. > >==== > >If we go for soln 2 or soln 3 we have to reconsider whether we wish to >preserve comments, and which not visibly namespaces we preserve. >I suggest preserve comments, and no namespaces that are not visibly used. > >BTW - if we go for 2 or 3 ARP will need updating - it has some support for >preservation of not visibly used namespaces. I could ask on jena-dev whether >anyone is using this feature. > >Jeremy ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 12:19:52 UTC