RDF-concepts: <rdf-wrapper>

Jeremy,

Some questions were being asked about <rdf-wrapper> in IRC.  I don't know 
if I got the intent right.  But there was a suggestion or two that might 
avoid the need to use <rdf-wrapper>.

Transcript follows.

[[
<gk> Eric, as I recall, <rdf-wrapper> stuff is to make a well-formed 
document so that canonical form can be described by simple reference to XML 
C14N specification.  It feels a bit kludgy, but I couldn't see a neater way 
to do it.
* danbri wishes http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml were in SVG
<danbri> gk, is rdf-wrapper in the Syntax spec anywhere?
*** grove_ has joined #rdfig
* DanCon returns from call, wonders where we are on the calendar agenda; 
adjourned?
<ericP> gk, i'd recommend saying that each child of the propertElt with 
parseType="Literal" is a exc-c14n document
<danbri> adjourned, i believe.
<DanCon> thx
<gk> Danbri, not as I recall.  It's part of the mapping from abstract graph 
to the domain of interpretation.
<danbri> it has angle brackets in it, so seems syntaxy...
<ericP> if i find such a literal as a result of a query, will it have 
<rdf-wrapper> around it?
<danbri> depends on the query api
<gk> Eric, I'd be happy to suggest that to Jeremy, but is that 
enough?  What about the space between the children?  I don't know XML 
subtleties well enough to know.
<ericP> so that i need to XPath my real data out?
<danbri> presumably we won't see <rdf-wrapper> in ordinary rdf serializations?
<ericP> gk, inter-children space, hmm, thinking...
<gk> danbri, absolutely; not in RDF/XML serialization.
<ericP> what if rdf-wrapper were made more abstract, ie, some element, so 
that folks would never try to put it in or take out out with XPath.
<ericP> ?
<amy> bye all
*** amy has quit IRC ("Leaving")
<gk> As I understand it, it's just a device to help the formal 
specification, and (maybe) the description of equivalend RDF graphs under 
XML canonicalization.  The presence of XML literals in the RDF somewhat 
middies that issue, I think.
<ericP> assuming my current interp is correct, that it is a temporary 
construct to make sure the canonicalization starts one down from the root 
element
*** DanCon changes topic to 'RDF & Semantic Web hack'n'chat 
http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/'
<ericP> algorithm:
<gk> Eric, I think there's a problem of exposition if folks are tempted to 
put in <rdf-wrapper> in their XPath.
<ericP>   get byt string from API or parser
<ericP>   stick inside <rdf-wrapper>
<ericP>   allpy exc-c14n
<ericP>   remove from <rdf-wrapper>
<ericP>   stick in graph
<ericP> done
*** arnarl has quit IRC ("Client Exiting")
<gk> Eric, I'm very sympathetic.  Don't know if that's enough.  I believe 
the intent of what you describe matches the WG intent.
<ericP> i'll think about this and see if i can come up with anything
<zoyd> other than RDF, what else will/does make the semantic web happen ?
<ericP> right now, my code (serving annotea) does something like that, 
except it doesn't need to stick it inside <rdf-wrapper> as that 
fucntionality is available in my canonicalizer
<ericP> other than inter-child spaces, is there an affect of the <rdf-wrapper>
<ericP> ?
<ericP> (other than to confuse my poor canonicalizer's understanding of 
which namespaces are currently in play)
*** Ol has left #rdfig
<gk> Eric, you just reminded me:  <rdf-wrapper> is also used to bring the 
appropriate language tag into play.  I suppose that might be done on each 
child element.  But now I feel the complexification of this approach may 
start to bite.
]]

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 06:04:23 UTC