W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Proposal to close reagle-01, reagle-02 (substantive)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:16:51 +0000
Message-ID: <3E679092.9040408@hpl.hp.com>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Brian, please prioritize discussion of this issue since
it is critical path for WebOnt.

Proposal to close reagle-01, reagle-02.

  Use exc-c14n without comments throughout.
  Suggest that parser should (but not SHOULD) canonicalize.

add new test(s) showing preservation of
  PIs, leading and trailing whitespace, namespace prefixes when
visibly used,
and showing removal of
   unused namespace decls
and showing attribute reordering.

Add note about this test(s):
   This test is optional; and is provided for parsers that
   wish to canonicalize rdf:XMLliterals and hence be appropriate
   for reasoning systems.

   Syntax doc:
     - no change
     - or add text in 7.2.17 after discussion of "some freedom" ..
   Test: For parsers which implement exc-c14n, ...

   Concepts doc:
Old text (section 5)
The mapping
is defined as the function that maps a pair or string to
**the canonical form [XML-C14N] (with comments) of** the
corresponding XML document.
**the exclusive canonicalization without comments and
with empty InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList parameter

Add new Note between reminder and current node
Note: For systems which reason about RDF graphs
it is suggested that the canonicalization be
performed on XML input. The internal representation
and non-XML external representations should be
in canonical form.

Add second new note:
Note: The mapping is not surjective. There are some
documents in canonical form that cannot arise through
exclusive canonicalization.

   follow, or defer to, concepts.

   Action jjc to talk with SWI-Prolog developers on this

1: Get the following use case to work correctly:

A web form generates an XML document (with a comment).
The XML document is passed through two pipelines.
Each pipleine involves both XML and RDF processing.
In one pipeline the XML document goes through a DOM
processor and is rewritten with ' instead of "
for attributes.
In the other the XML comments get stripped.

The two documents come together in an OWL system
which needs to know that they are the same.

2: Ensure that there is interoperable failure with
the following use case.
Someone puts an XSLT document into an RDF XMLLiteral
and later writes it out and tries executing it.

LC drafts have situation 1 non-interoperable, and
situation 2 as it might work, but it depends.

With or Without comments
In Cannes, and again today in person, Patrick
expressed a strong preference for retaining comments.
This could be done by substituting "with" for "without"
in all relevant text.
I would vote against in a straw poll on such an
amendment but would vote in favour of a resolution
including such a modification, if that were the result
of WG consensus.
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2003 13:17:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:21 UTC