Re: call for agenda items

Hi Patrick,

First of all, I'd like to thank for raising and exploring options that
might better meet I18N's needs.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure these have
worked out as well as we hoped.

As I understand the essence of the revised proposal, which you refer to
in your post, is to draw a clear distinction between contextual and
non-contextual literals - i.e. those that inherit XML characteristics
such lang, base etc from their environment and those which do not.

In that proposal:

 - contextual literals in RDF/XML inherit their context, including not
just xml:lang but also xml:base and "etc".

 - non contextual literals inherit none of their context, including
namespaces

Do we fully understand the consequences of this and how to do it?  I'm
concerned that this might not be as minor a change as you suggest.  For
example, what canonicalization spec do we refer to for canonicalization
that does not include namespaces?

Brian




On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 08:20, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> To: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 15 July, 2003 20:49
> Subject: call for agenda items
> 
> 
> >
> > I'm on holiday Wednesday; please send me items for the telecon agenda by
> > Thurs noon uk time.
> >
> > Brian
> 
> 
> Discussion of the refinement to literal handling, capturing the X and G
> views
> (contextual vs. non-contextual literals) as outlined in
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0165.html
> 
> Providing the benefits:
> 
> 1. XML literals can be encoded as contextual (plain) or non-contextual
> (typed).
> 
> 2. Allows contextual XML literals to have language tag associated, providing
>     consistent treatment of language qualification for all contextual
> literals, plain or XML.
> 
> 3. Removes special distinction in RDF graph between plain and XML literals.
> 
> 4. Allows complex typed literals (e.g. xhtml:table) to be serialized as XML.
> 
> 5. Only requires tweaks to RDF/XML syntax and RDF/XML to graph mapping.
> 
> Benefits #1 & #2 directly address concerns/wishes (as I've understood them)
> expressed
> by Martin and I18N WG (albeit not all of them) while still addressing the
> concerns/needs
> of those wishing to use the RDF Datatyping machinery (conveniently) for XML
> literals.
> 
> Benefit #3 addresses earlier concerns by TimBL about an artificial
> distinction or special
> treatment for XML literals separate from plain literals which breaks
> layering.
> (c.f. TimBLs comments:
> http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-rdfcadm-tbl.html#xtocid103643)
> 
> Benefit #4 makes RDF more convenient for managing XML fragments with
> explicit typing.
> 
> Benefit #5 addresses the needs of the RDF Core WG to get things wrapped up
> without
> major rework.
> 
> --
> 
> While I think it has been agreed that there are no showstoppers in the
> present design,
> I have difficulty dismissing the view that the above minor changes are
> warranted.
> 
> Patrick
>

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 08:33:31 UTC