From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 16:45, 9 May 2012 by Eric
Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:36:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:36:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/09-rdf-wg-irc 14:36:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:36:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:36:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394 14:36:28 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes 14:36:29 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:36:29 <trackbot> Date: 09 May 2012 14:55:27 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg 14:55:44 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started 14:55:58 <Zakim> +??P3 14:55:58 <Zakim> + +31.20.598.aaaa 14:56:05 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg 14:56:23 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:56:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P3, +31.20.598.aaaa 14:56:26 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 14:56:27 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P3 is me 14:56:27 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it 14:57:07 <Guus> zakim, +31.20 is me 14:57:07 <Zakim> +Guus; got it 14:57:19 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:57:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:57:20 <Zakim> +Ivan 14:57:38 <Guus> zakim, this is RDF 14:57:38 <Zakim> Guus, this was already SW_RDFWG()11:00AM 14:57:39 <Zakim> ok, Guus; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM 14:58:35 <ScottB> ScottB has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:47 <Zakim> +??P7 14:58:52 <AndyS> zakim, ??P7 is me 14:58:52 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 14:59:14 <PatH> PatH has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:04 <Zakim> +bhyland 15:00:13 <davidwood> Zakim, bhyland is really me 15:00:13 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it 15:00:28 <Zakim> +??P8 15:00:49 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:01 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 15:01:05 <Zakim> +Tony 15:01:09 <pfps> zakim, ??p8 is me 15:01:09 <Zakim> +pfps; got it 15:01:13 <pfps> ack ??p8 15:01:21 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me 15:01:21 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it 15:01:31 <AZ> I'm the scribe, I'm joining the call 15:01:39 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:01:39 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:01:40 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:01:40 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:01:47 <Zakim> +??P15 15:01:52 <Zakim> +gavinc 15:01:56 <tbaker> tbaker has joined #rdf-wg 15:02:12 <AZ> Zakim, ??P15 is me 15:02:12 <Zakim> +AZ; got it 15:02:30 <PatH> I will be joining on IRC today but can call in if absolutely needed. 15:02:38 <Zakim> +??P19 15:02:53 <Zakim> +??P18 15:03:02 <danbri_> zakim, ??P18 is probably danbri 15:03:02 <Zakim> +danbri; got it 15:03:03 <tbaker> zakim, ??P19 is tbaker 15:03:04 <Zakim> +tbaker; got it 15:03:30 <AZ> scribe: AZ 15:03:35 <Zakim> +Sandro 15:04:10 <Zakim> +mhausenblas 15:04:14 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me 15:04:14 <Zakim> +cygri; got it 15:04:17 <davidwood> Topic: Admin 15:04:20 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 2 May telecon: 15:04:20 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-02 15:05:13 <davidwood> Review of actions 15:05:13 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview 15:05:13 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open 15:05:55 <Zakim> + +126.96.36.199.aabb 15:06:07 <pchampin> zakim, aabb is me 15:06:08 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it 15:06:30 <gavinc> Closed ACTION-168 as a duplicate 15:06:36 <sandro> I've made no progress on any of mine, sorry. 15:07:41 <davidwood> Topic: XMLLiteral 15:07:47 <cygri> q+ 15:07:55 <davidwood> See proposal at: 15:07:55 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XML_Literals 15:08:00 <davidwood> ack cygri 15:08:13 <cygri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0006.html 15:08:17 <Zakim> +ericP 15:08:46 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy? 15:08:48 <LeeF> LeeF has joined #rdf-wg 15:08:56 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (8%), AZ (14%), ericP (15%) 15:09:14 <ericP> scribenick: ericP 15:09:17 <Zakim> +LeeF 15:09:28 <ericP> cygri: the lexical space need not be canonical, btu well-formed 15:09:43 <davidwood> • Make rdf:XMLLiteral optional in the datatype map 15:09:43 <davidwood> • Change rdf:XMLLiteral lexical space to allow 15:09:43 <davidwood> non-canonical but well-formed XML 15:09:43 <davidwood> • Define a canonical lexical form for rdf:XMLLiteral 15:09:43 <davidwood> that is equivalent to the old lexical space 15:09:44 <davidwood> • Re-define the value space in terms of XML infosets (this 15:09:46 <davidwood> should be in 1:1 correspondence to the old value space 15:09:48 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:09:48 <davidwood> and old lexical space) 15:09:49 <ericP> ... then we can add a canonical lexical form, which is the same as the old lexical space 15:09:56 <gavinc> cygri: (describes rdf:XMLLiteral as found in link) 15:10:13 <ericP> ... the value space would be 1:1 on the old values space, but we would want to rephrase the definition 15:10:21 <ericP> ... there are two proposals: 15:10:31 <ericP> ... .. expresses it in terms of infosets 15:10:41 <cygri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0186.html 15:10:47 <ericP> ... .. and we've just looked at expressing it in terms of DOM trees 15:10:57 <ericP> ... DOM trees should be the same thing 15:11:28 <ericP> q+ to ask why DOM (defined in terms of DOM) instead of infoset 15:11:33 <Zakim> -pchampin 15:11:39 <ivan> q+ 15:11:52 <ericP> cygri: question is how to define 15:12:19 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask why DOM (defined in terms of DOM) instead of infoset 15:12:21 <davidwood> ack ericp 15:12:40 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 15:12:41 <gavinc> DOM is not phrased in term of the infoset 15:12:51 <zwu2> zakim, code? 15:12:51 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:firstname.lastname@example.org), zwu2 15:13:31 <AZ> gavinc: XPath, XQuery, define their own data model 15:13:34 <AndyS> FYI, http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#omitted 15:13:50 <Zakim> +zwu2 15:13:54 <davidwood> ack ivan 15:14:06 <zwu2> zakim, mute me 15:14:06 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted 15:14:33 <ericP> gavinc: infoset has no conformance. all specs create their own model 15:14:39 <ivan> A.isEqualNode(B) 15:14:42 <ericP> ivan: we asked Liam, who said the same as gavinc 15:15:07 <ericP> ... there is also a handy equiv function, A.isEqualNode(B), in DOM 15:15:30 <ericP> ... another issue is whether we want to have an HTML5 literal 15:15:48 <Zakim> + +188.8.131.52.aacc 15:15:48 <ericP> ... HTML5 is defines how to parse HTML5 into a DOM 15:15:53 <pchampin> zakim, aacc is me 15:15:53 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it 15:15:56 <pchampin> zakim, mute me 15:15:56 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted 15:16:14 <ericP> ... HTML5 does not go so far as how to say what HTML5 looks like in an infoset 15:16:31 <ericP> ... we can chain specs to derive that, but it's complicated and unnecessary 15:16:35 <davidwood> q? 15:16:49 <ericP> i'm happy for this choice as long as we have the blessing of Liam 15:17:01 <ericP> davidwood: is this what steve harris objected to? 15:17:18 <ericP> ivan: he had issues with the complexity 15:17:29 <cygri> q+ 15:17:37 <davidwood> Ivan: We can define a path from an HTML5 literal to an infoset, but Steve had issues with that level of complexity in RDF. 15:17:38 <ericP> ... but it's not required that one implement the equiv 15:18:02 <PatH> FWIW, I am happy with anything as long as there is a well-defined literal-to-value mapping we can refer to in the semantics. 15:18:11 <ericP> ... current defn demands that one create canonical XML 15:18:19 <davidwood> Ivan: Nobody knows what canonical XML is. 15:18:37 <ericP> ... if you have a tool, like my RDFaDistiller, you're stuck finding a c14n library 15:18:46 <AZ> s/Ivan:/Ivan,/ 15:18:48 <cygri> q- 15:18:57 <gavinc> +q to add that it doesn't even have to be valid XML 15:19:17 <ericP> ... so with the DOM soln, if tools want equality, they can use the DOM function 15:19:32 <davidwood> ack gavinc 15:19:32 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to add that it doesn't even have to be valid XML 15:20:04 <ericP> gavinc: if defined in terms of DOM instead of XML C14N, we can leverage the HTML5 error handling 15:20:23 <ericP> ... this can help us consume non-well-formed markup 15:20:36 <gavinc> s/HTML5/XML 15:20:43 <cygri> q+ 15:20:57 <gavinc> See http://www.w3.org/community/xml-er/ 15:20:58 <davidwood> ack cygri 15:20:58 <ericP> davidwood: richard's proposal exists in the context of needing of an XML datatype 15:21:08 <ericP> ... so we can reduce the need for the XML datatype 15:21:26 <davidwood> s/needing of an XML datatype/needing of an HTML datatype/ 15:21:30 <ericP> cygri: even if we don't change the effective datatype, a change to the defn makes it more usable 15:22:08 <ericP> ... we're not ready to propose HTML literals, issues around parsing, etc 15:22:17 <ericP> davidwood: but we've generally agreed that we'll do it 15:22:43 <ericP> cygri: even before that, i propose redefining the XML literal 15:23:03 <ericP> davidwood: make XML literal optional in the datatype map 15:23:12 <Zakim> +Arnaud 15:23:17 <davidwood> Change rdf:XMLLiteral lexical space to allow 15:23:17 <davidwood> non-canonical but well-formed XML 15:23:21 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg 15:23:40 <ericP> ivan: XML literals are not necessarily meant to capture HTML5 15:23:50 <ericP> davidwood: we don't have an XHMTL type 15:24:04 <gavinc> XHTML is XML 15:24:12 <gavinc> HTML is HTML 15:24:21 <ericP> ... hope 15:24:30 <ericP> s/... hope / 15:24:55 <gavinc> Polyglut documents are funky and only crazy people like Sam Ruby make them 15:25:09 <PatH> Wait. Good XHTML is XML< but can there be bad XHTML which is still good XML?? IF so, we need a separate datatype. 15:25:22 <gavinc> No, there is no such thing as "bad" XHTML 15:25:37 <ericP> davidwood: regardless of what we do with XML and HTML datatypes, some data could go in either 15:25:56 <PatH> Oh. Hmm, I guess I really should shut up at hthis point :-) 15:26:03 <ericP> gavinc: "Polyglut" meaning a document that is both application/xhtml and text/html 15:26:07 <ericP> ... those are hard to make 15:26:11 <gavinc> Polyglot too 15:26:31 <ericP> s/Polyglut/Polyglot/ 15:26:52 <PatH> I like polyglut. I knew one of them once. 15:27:34 <ivan> q? 15:27:38 <ericP> cygri: old XML value space is XML C14N, which specifies e.g. " vs. ', empty tags vs. tag pairs, etc. 15:27:39 <ivan> q+ 15:27:44 <davidwood> ack ivan 15:28:06 <ericP> ivan: do we need this canonical lexical form for each datatype? 15:28:08 <PatH> Are there many users of rdf:XMLLIteral, in fact? 15:28:55 <PatH> No, a dtatype does not *need* to hve a cononical form,. It just makes equality checking WAAAAY easier. 15:29:20 <PatH> cononical/canonical 15:29:23 <gavinc> PatH, DOM defines equality checking 15:29:27 <ericP> ericP: use cases for any canonicalization are around e.g. SPARQL queries looking for shoe:size 5 and not shoe:size "05"^^xsd::integer 15:29:30 <AndyS> Users - yes and no. GML literals are XML (but often not legal XMLLiterals) 15:29:31 <PatH> Well then fine. 15:29:44 <ericP> ... use cases for the XML Literal analog are a little bit of a stretch 15:29:50 <AndyS> q+ 15:30:18 <ericP> ivan: responding to PatH, DOM-level equiv is easier than C14N equiv 15:30:48 <PatH> OK. 15:30:50 <davidwood> ack AndyS 15:31:13 <ericP> q+ to ask how equiv is used in anger 15:31:49 <ericP> AndyS: it's clear how canonicalization is used 15:32:11 <PatH> If you speak to me like that again., I'll equiv you so fast you won't know you've been canonicalized. 15:32:20 <ericP> ... c14n is more in favor of containing the complexity to input normalization 15:32:47 <ericP> ... unfortunetely, many XML literals can't just be pasted 15:33:02 <ericP> ... you've moved the problem to someone else 15:33:23 <PatH> +1 ericP 15:33:37 <pchampin> q+ 15:33:37 <PatH> Or was it Andy. 15:33:43 <ericP> davidwood: ok to push to someone else if the string is to be interpreted in someone else's application 15:33:56 <PatH> Gotcha 15:34:27 <ericP> gavinc: isn't there a clear optomization path? 15:34:42 <cygri> q+ 15:34:52 <davidwood> ack ericp 15:34:52 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask how equiv is used in anger 15:35:11 <ericP> AndyS: depends on whether you want the output to exactly reflect the input 15:35:46 <ericP> ... i'd like to encourage folks to canonicalize, but not oblige them 15:36:18 <ericP> davidwood, if we do input normalization, they incur a cost for a data element which may never be read [or matched -- ED] 15:36:24 <ericP> davidwood: if we do input normalization, they incur a cost for a data element which may never be read [or matched -- ED] 15:36:51 <PatH> Seems to me key issue is, if I don't coninicalize, will your queries work right against my data? And if not, whose fault is that? 15:36:58 <ericP> ... if you canonicalize on use, e.g. SPARQL, we impact those apps 15:37:25 <pchampin> zakim, unmute me 15:37:25 <Zakim> pchampin should no longer be muted 15:37:26 <davidwood> ack pchampin 15:37:28 <ivan> pat, if the query engine implements equality of the dom trees, then it should work 15:37:39 <ericP> ... it seems easier technically and socially to canonicalize on input 15:37:58 <ericP> pchampin: i agree with AndyS's point 15:38:18 <ericP> ... prob is folks won't necessarily know it's canonicalized and not take advantage 15:38:22 <PatH> Ivan, OK, then why are we discussing canonicalizing on input? 15:38:27 <davidwood> ack cygri 15:38:33 <ericP> ... an option is to have two, one with a restricted lexical space 15:38:34 <ericP> cygri 15:38:39 <ivan> pat, I do not know, that was i was asking, too! 15:38:44 <ericP> cygri: that's what i proposed, but it's not working out 15:38:50 <PatH> Ah, pchampin makes good point. 15:39:00 <ivan> +1 to Richard 15:39:11 <ericP> ... i don't think that requiring canonicalization has worked out 15:39:18 <ivan> c14n in xml literals has proven to be a disaster 15:39:29 <ivan> q+ 15:39:33 <ericP> pchampin: may it didn't work out 'cause it was the only one available 15:39:35 <PatH> Having a normative requirement to play fair rarely works out. 15:39:35 <AndyS> I agree requiring canonicalization has not worked out. 15:39:48 <ericP> +1 to pchampin's point 15:39:54 <pchampin> zakim, mute me 15:39:54 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted 15:40:17 <Zakim> -AZ 15:40:21 <cygri> q+ 15:40:35 <ericP> ivan: technically, two types could work, but i don't see the motivating use cases 15:40:52 <davidwood> ack ivan 15:40:57 <ericP> ... mostly i've seen e.g. excerpts of HTML in RSS, used only for display 15:41:09 <ericP> ... i don't think we should define another form of these datatypes 15:41:27 <pchampin> @ivan: fair enough :) 15:41:27 <ericP> ... anyone could add that type 15:41:31 <ericP> q? 15:41:36 <davidwood> ack cygri 15:41:40 <ericP> cygri: +1 to ivan 15:41:59 <ericP> ... it might be useful to keep the definition of the canonical mapping in the datatype 15:42:22 <ericP> ... XS datatypes optionally define canonical forms 15:42:55 <ericP> ... it's nice to indicate how c14n can be used by interested systems 15:43:11 <PatH> If caonicalized data smells the same as uncanonicalized, then nobody can rely on the canon, so its not worth doing the work to canonicalize it, so we have a huge negative feedback situation. 15:43:12 <ericP> ... there's no obligation, and for some systems it's useful 15:43:26 <ericP> ... i think that pointing to the c14n algorithm is a good idea 15:44:22 <ericP> ... also helps migration of RDF2004 to RDF1.1 by saying that the new lexical space encompasses the old space 15:44:55 <PatH> Maybe have a datatype for canonicalized data? rdf:CXMLLIteral, to let people know what they are getting. 15:46:10 <cygri> ericP, no, it doesn't mention unicode normalization 15:46:13 <ivan> PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1 (a) XMLLiterals are optional (b) lexical space consists of valid XML fragments © the canonical lexical form is c14n (d) the value space consists of DOM trees 15:46:35 <cygri> s/valid/well-formed/ 15:46:48 <pfps> Q : is this harder than the current situation or easier? 15:47:13 <PatH> And for who? (publishers or consumers?) 15:47:17 <gavinc> Yes. 15:47:19 <pfps> easier is good! :-) 15:47:25 <LeeF> I'm with pfps. 15:47:28 <zwu2> Are DOM trees unique? 15:47:42 <gavinc> Easier to publish and easier to consume 15:47:45 <Arnaud> zwu2: not necessarily 15:47:54 <PatH> I like that this doe not use the word "canonicalize" 15:47:57 <Arnaud> only after normalization 15:47:59 <zwu2> then, which one should we canonicalize into? 15:48:13 <MacTed> +1 15:48:17 <ericP> 1+ 15:48:19 <AndyS> Looks best of (difficult) choices to me. 15:48:19 <ericP> q+ 15:48:27 <ericP> ivan: i am much more interested in keeping publishing easier 15:48:33 <davidwood> ack ericp 15:48:44 <PatH> +1 ivan 15:48:45 <sandro> +1 ivan: we should make it easier for data publishers, even if it makes things harder for SPARQL implementers 15:48:52 <MacTed> (that is, +1 make publishing easier, even at the expense of making SPARQL/consumption harder) 15:49:03 <ivan> q+ 15:49:04 <AndyS> q+ to address the SPARQL aspect 15:49:30 <gavinc> +q to point out that SPARQL stores can still use C14N 15:50:38 <davidwood> ack ivan 15:51:19 <ericP> ivan: in RDFa, the test harness uses SPARQL ASK to test a particular pattern 15:51:41 <gavinc> -q 15:51:44 <ericP> ... we had immense problems with the SPARQL literals, uneven implementation 15:51:57 <davidwood> ack AndyS 15:51:58 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to address the SPARQL aspect 15:51:59 <ericP> ... it's aleady a mess; we won't make it worse 15:52:21 <ivan> s/SPARQL literals/XML literals in SPARQL/ 15:52:22 <ericP> AndyS: i think the SPARQL stores would handle it at load time instead of query time 15:52:42 <ericP> would entailment permit that? 15:53:27 <gavinc> You end up building hashes based on the DOM itself and the XPath/XQuery data model, see http://exist-db.org/ ;) 15:53:29 <davidwood> q? 15:53:33 <ericP> [ discussion of errors in large uploads ] 15:53:52 <davidwood> q? 15:54:20 <ivan> PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1 (a) XMLLiterals are optional (b) lexical space consists of valid XML fragments © the canonical lexical form is c14n (d) the value space consists of DOM trees 15:54:31 <zwu2> q+ 15:54:46 <zwu2> zakim, unmute me 15:54:46 <Zakim> zwu2 should no longer be muted 15:54:49 <PatH> What does © mean here? 15:54:56 <ericP> davidwood: i think no one objects to XMLLiteral are optional or lexical space consists of valid XML 15:54:57 <MacTed> PatH - client error 15:55:01 <gavinc> +1 to a, b, c, and +∞ to d 15:55:05 <pfps> \me (c) 15:55:11 <ivan> pat: my client turned ( c ) into a copyright character:-( 15:55:18 <AndyS> PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1 (a) XMLLiterals are optional (b) lexical space consists of valid XML fragments (c) the canonical lexical form is c14n (d) the value space consists of DOM trees 15:55:20 <PatH> AH. Duh. 15:55:28 <MacTed> PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1: [a] XMLLiterals are optional; [b] lexical space consists of valid XML fragments; [c] the canonical lexical form is c14n; [d] the value space consists of DOM trees. 15:55:30 <pfps> \me that's because it *knew* that you worked for W3C 15:55:41 <MacTed> *heh* 15:55:44 <ivan> q+ 15:55:59 <davidwood> ack zwu 15:56:34 <PatH> I wonder what is the point of stating that there is a canonical lexical form if peple arent obliged to use it and users can't tell if it has been used or not. 15:56:41 <ericP> zwu, i like the idea of c14n, but is c14n + serialization a unique process? 15:56:45 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy? 15:56:55 <ivan> q? 15:56:56 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (15%), davidwood (29%), Ivan (55%), zwu2 (15%), ericP (35%) 15:57:10 <zwu2> I want to know if c14n + serialization a unique process 15:57:27 <zwu2> actually ericP captured my question, thanks! 15:57:46 <ivan> A.isEqualNode(B) dom3 15:57:56 <ericP> ivan: we don't care, 'cause what counts is the equality in the value space 15:58:32 <ericP> Arnaud: that equivalence is post-normalization 15:58:55 <ericP> ... e.g. creating a single text node from a series of text nodes 15:58:56 <davidwood> q? 15:58:57 <Zakim> -pchampin 15:59:01 <PatH> I take it that the only purpose of mentioning a canonical form is so that equality reduces to string identity (or close) . If this is not an issue, then lets just not even mention canonicalization. 15:59:10 <ericP> cygri: not needed 'cause the DOM tree is the result of parsing 15:59:13 <davidwood> PatH, yes 15:59:30 <zwu2> +1 to PatH 15:59:37 <ivan> Pat that was my point... 15:59:37 <Zakim> -pfps 15:59:51 <PatH> Ivan, then delete ( c ) 16:00:09 <ericP> Arnaud: that's not defined 16:00:24 <ericP> ericP: i've seen the opposite from MSXML3 16:00:44 <Zakim> +??P6 16:00:49 <ivan> q+ 16:00:52 <pfps> zakim, ??p6 is me 16:00:52 <Zakim> +pfps; got it 16:00:55 <ericP> davidwood: we could have this same discussion based on, say, a style modification 16:00:58 <davidwood> ack ivan 16:01:10 <ericP> ... we can never solve this, just assympotically approach it 16:01:27 <PatH> Davidwood, Oooh yes, lets! 16:01:28 <gavinc> We can lean on DOM anyway here, or reuse the wording ;) "The childNodes NodeLists are equal. This is: they are both null, or they have the same length and contain equal nodes at the same index. Note that normalization can affect equality; to avoid this, nodes should be normalized before being compared." 16:01:34 <ericP> ivan: HTML5 spec is very clear about how a document is turned into a DOM 16:01:55 <pchampin> zakim, mute me 16:02:02 <Zakim> +pchampin 16:02:13 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted 16:02:22 <ericP> ericP: does HTML5 produce exactly one DOM? 16:02:22 <gavinc> see http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#ID-normalize 16:02:28 <ericP> ivan: assume so 16:02:59 <ericP> ... content to take Arnaud's advice about normalizing first 16:03:37 <davidwood> PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1: [a] XMLLiterals are optional; [b] lexical space consists of well-formed XML fragments; [c] the canonical lexical form is c14n; [d] the value space consists of DOM trees. 16:04:09 <cygri> [d] the value space consists of (normalized) DOM trees. 16:04:34 <davidwood> PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1: [a] XMLLiterals are optional; [b] lexical space consists of well-formed XML fragments; [c] the canonical lexical form is c14n; [d] the value space consists of (normalized) DOM trees. 16:04:38 <PatH> TO me, "canonical" is easy to read as meaning "recommended". Do we want to convey this? 16:04:56 <ericP> <root>abc</root> could be element(root, (text node(a),text node(b),text node(c)) or element(root, (text node(abc)) 16:05:10 <AndyS> (XSD defines canonical forms -- does not force use) 16:05:24 <ivan> +1 16:05:27 <yvesr> +1 16:05:29 <Arnaud> +1 16:05:30 <cygri> +1 16:05:30 <MacTed> +1 16:05:32 <pfps> +epsilon 16:05:33 <ericP> +1 16:05:33 <gavinc> +1 16:05:33 <zwu2> -1 to [c] 16:05:34 <PatH> -1 16:05:37 <davidwood> +1 16:05:42 <pchampin> +1 16:05:44 <sandro> +0 16:05:55 <PatH> that was -1 to [c], +1 to rest. 16:06:22 <pfps> Doesn't the current situation require canonicalization? 16:06:26 <gavinc> Yes. 16:06:37 <ivan> PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1: [a] XMLLiterals are optional; [b] lexical space consists of well-formed XML fragments; [c] the value space consists of (normalized) DOM trees. 16:07:32 <cygri> ericP, why don't you ask them 16:07:35 <PatH> I am fine with canonicalization which is REQUIRED. BUt if its not required, we shouldnt mention it at all. 16:07:43 <AndyS> -0.5 to not mentioning what the canonical form is : we are suggesting canonical for integers etc as good practice. 16:08:00 <PatH> Good practive is fine, but not in the definitions. 16:08:42 <AndyS> Jena checks - can't remember is it will canonicalize - maybe does it by string->DOM->string 16:08:43 <gavinc> PatH, ALL the xsd datatypes define a cononical form 16:08:44 <pfps> Does producing (normalized) DOM trees require canonicalization? 16:08:48 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#boolean 16:08:53 <gavinc> pfps, no 16:09:22 <PatH> Gavin,. I know it is defined. The issue is, do we require its use in RDF data? If not, lets not mention it in the normative definition of the datatype. 16:09:27 <AndyS> Non-normative section. 16:09:53 <gavinc> non-normative refrence to cononical form 16:10:00 <PatH> Exactly 16:10:00 <Arnaud> one difference between normalized dom and canonical xml for instance is that attributes are not ordered in the dom 16:10:10 <pfps> But, but, but, the RDF semantics requires that XSD-datatype RDF implementations map XSD literals into their real value, which is roughly equivalent to canonicalizing them, isn't it? 16:10:27 <gavinc> pfps, no, value space is not the same as cononical form 16:10:32 <ericP> AndyS: i'd be happy with the canonicalization in a non-normative section 16:10:34 <PatH> ? Where does it require that?? 16:11:10 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/ 16:11:18 <cygri> this is already required in RDF 2004 16:11:18 <pfps> If you use a datatype, then the meaning of literals in that datatype is defined by the datatype mapping. 16:11:20 <ericP> zwu2: i'm happy if i can find a c14n which will work across triple stores 16:11:38 <ericP> ... if we apply that, would we get a unique serialization? 16:11:39 <PatH> BTE, I also like "cononical" which I think means "made into the form of a cone" 16:11:50 <ericP> ivan: yep, was designed to support XML signature 16:12:07 <gavinc> Yes, http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/ provides a perfectly unique set of bytes for any equalivite XML 1.0 DOM 16:12:10 <ericP> davidwood: C14N is a REC and already required in RDF2004 16:12:57 <ericP> ... so we just have to make sure we don't change that ref to excl c14n 16:13:06 <davidwood> PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1: [a] XMLLiterals are optional; [b] lexical space consists of well-formed XML fragments; [c] the canonical lexical form is http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/, as defined in RDF 2044; [d] the value space consists of (normalized) DOM trees. 16:13:33 <davidwood> PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1: [a] XMLLiterals are optional; [b] lexical space consists of well-formed XML fragments; [c] the canonical lexical form is http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/, as defined in RDF 2004; [d] the value space consists of (normalized) DOM trees. 16:13:42 <ivan> +1 16:13:43 <MacTed> +1 16:13:43 <cygri> +1 16:13:44 <PatH> I still dont kow what [ c] means. Can I publish RDF data using this datatype that is not canonicalized?? 16:13:44 <Arnaud> +1 16:13:45 <pchampin> +1 16:13:47 <ericP> +1 16:13:47 <zwu2> +1 thanks for the clarifications 16:13:50 <gavinc> PatH, yes. 16:13:52 <davidwood> +1 16:13:59 <AndyS> + 16:14:00 <PatH> Thern =1 from me. 16:14:12 <gavinc> Just as you can write "01" or "1" or "000001" 16:14:15 <pfps> +2epsilon 16:14:19 <danbri> +1 16:14:20 <gavinc> +1 16:14:20 <sandro> +1 16:14:30 <zwu2> very good decoding still David 16:14:35 <zwu2> s/still/skill 16:15:03 <ivan> RESOLVED: in RDF 1.1: [a] XMLLiterals are optional; [b] lexical space consists of well-formed XML fragments; [c] the canonical lexical form is http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/, as defined in RDF 2004; [d] the value space consists of (normalized) DOM trees. 16:15:07 <Arnaud> I have to go 16:15:13 <PatH> BUt readers of our spec will NOT read it as math. We just created a tutorial nightmare that will ast for decades. 16:15:14 <Zakim> -Arnaud 16:15:16 <Zakim> -yvesr 16:15:16 <Zakim> -Sandro 16:15:17 <Zakim> -zwu2 16:15:17 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:15:18 <pchampin> bye 16:15:18 <Zakim> -danbri 16:15:20 <Zakim> -tbaker 16:15:21 <cygri> thanks all! 16:15:21 <Zakim> -Ivan 16:15:23 <Zakim> -pfps 16:15:27 <Zakim> -AndyS 16:15:34 <Zakim> -cygri 16:15:37 <Zakim> -gavinc 16:16:00 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to implement ISSUE-13 resolution in RDF Concepts 16:16:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-169 - Implement ISSUE-13 resolution in RDF Concepts [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-05-16]. 16:16:08 <PatH> Rather you tahn me, MacTed :-) 16:16:34 <Zakim> -ScottB 16:17:58 <Zakim> -pchampin 16:19:44 <Zakim> -LeeF 16:20:20 <Zakim> -Guus 16:21:29 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #rdf-wg # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000461