- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:58:30 +0000
- To: skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Stefan, In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Mar/0022.html you raised an issue which was captured in http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces as [[[ The RDF XML syntax permits Literals which consist of XML markup. Is the value of the literal the string of characters as they appear in the the source document? If it is, then the association of namespace prefixes to namespace URI's may be lost. Alternatively, an RDF processor may be required to modify the XML markup as necessary to preserve the association between namespace prefixes and namespace URI's. ]]] As recorded in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0235.html the RDFCore WG has resolved: o the exact form of the string value corresponding to any given XML Literal within RDF/XML is implementation dependent. o the string value is well-balanced XML o taking the exclusive canonicalization of both the original XML Literal in its containing document, and the string value of the literal produce the same character string. (this will be used as the basis for test cases) o the canonicalization above is without comments i.e. CONFORMANCE should be tested by canonicalizing without comments; comments may be included in the string representation of a literal o this issue is closed o to raise a comment on the XQuery/XPath 2.0 data model that it does not adequately address the handling of namespace prefixes appearing in attribute values. Roughly speaking, this means that: o an rdf parser should add relevant namespace declarations to the string representation of the literal o it may not spot namespaces that are used only in attribute values - an issue that we will raise with the appropriate WG o it is implementation dependent whether XML comments are retained in the string or not o the xml canonicalization of the strings produced by all implementations should be equal - which is how we test for conformance Please could you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue. Brian McBride RDFCore co-chair
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 15:01:07 UTC