- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:27:31 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, reagle@w3.org, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, n-shiraishi@w3.org
Recorded as http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01 Brian At 14:47 30/01/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > > I presume that the reason you even care how the xml-literal is represented > > is that you will want to compare RDF instances (which might contain > > xml-literals) to see if they are identical at some point? If that's the > > case, then won't you want the character/octet representation of XML within > > a RDF representation to be equivalent as well? For example, if you are > > comparing two RDF blobs for identity, you wouldn't want the two > > xml-literals to be different because one implementation cared about > > comments and the other didn't...? > >This is a good point. Brian please assign an issue number. > >Initially the goal of working on XML Literals was simply to get visibly used >namespaces to work at all. This goal is achieved; but for certain >applications we have not achieved interoperability. > > > First, again, what purpose is a canonicalization even serving if you are > > likely to get implementation variances? > >It *is* an improvement on where we used to be! >So, there is quite a lot of clarity as to what the contract is, but we have >tried to remember the more casual implementor. >If an implementor decides they only want to partially support these literals, >they could choose say to always bind the default namespace to xhtml and not >support any other binding. The string for the literal is then essentially a >copy straight out of the input document. >Other users need the precision that you talk about - which as you point >out we >haven't delivered. > >Hmmm ... I will try and defend the decisions we have made a bit more. > >The fundamental problem we are addressing is *how* to repesent XML content >within an RDF graph. This XML content originates from an RDF/XML document, >but, that original context gets lost. Thus we face a number of problems >familiar in exc-c14n, what to do about entities?, what to do about visibly >used namespaces? what to do with namespaces that are present but not visibly >used? These issues are the pressing ones that are addressed by the Last Call >docs. A further issue of making sure that two different implementations get >exactly the same answer was not one that we felt it necessary to address. >I will ask the WG to reconsider whether this was correct as part of the LC >process. > > > > This behaviour is conformant but not required. >To the RDF Last Call documents. > >Thanks for your comments, Brian should assign an issue number concerning the >implementation variability, Pat should follow up on the misleading wording >about the xsd namespace in semantics. > >Jeremy
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 09:26:27 UTC