IRC log of rdf-wg on 2012-05-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

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]
+ +33.6.66.52.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:zakim@voip.w3.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]
+ +33.9.51.77.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?
15:54:18 [ericP]
2012-05-09T15:46:13Z
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
16:34:39 [ericP]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-09
16:41:06 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
16:41:08 [Zakim]
-davidwood
16:41:10 [Zakim]
-ericP
16:41:12 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
16:41:12 [Zakim]
Attendees were +31.20.598.aaaa, yvesr, Guus, Ivan, AndyS, davidwood, pfps, ScottB, MacTed, gavinc, AZ, danbri?, tbaker, Sandro, cygri, +33.6.66.52.aabb, pchampin, ericP, LeeF,
16:41:12 [Zakim]
... zwu2, +33.9.51.77.aacc, Arnaud
16:42:04 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has left #rdf-wg
16:44:50 [swh]
swh has joined #rdf-wg
18:34:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg
18:50:04 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdf-wg
19:36:24 [danbri_]
danbri_ has joined #rdf-wg
19:40:10 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdf-wg
19:45:06 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdf-wg
21:07:26 [swh]
swh has joined #rdf-wg
23:27:42 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #rdf-wg