Re: call for agenda items

----- Original Message -----
From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>;
"i18n" <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
Sent: 17 July, 2003 15:32
Subject: 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.

Well, my perspective of what may or may not be minor is of
course limited.

Since what I am proposing is (I believe) exclusively a change
to the RDF/XML syntax and RDF/XML to graph mapping, I was waiting
to hear from Jeremy and Dave particularly.

Jeremy didn't seem to thrilled, though I think he is seeing
ghosts. I didn't want to get into that before/unless there
was some clear indication from the WG and you in general that
this is something we should actively address further.

> For
> example, what canonicalization spec do we refer to for canonicalization
> that does not include namespaces?

For contextual XML literals, it would be the same as now defined
for rdfs:XMLLiteral lexical forms.

For non-contextual XML literals, it would correspond to the
literal string, with the top/first level of escaping
unescaped, following normal XML conventions.

So I don't see any new territory there. Only some finessing
of what we're already doing.

Patrick



> 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 10:19:18 UTC