14:36:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/09-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/09-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:36:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:36:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:36:28 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
14:55:44 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 19 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
14:55:58 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
14:55:58 <Zakim> + +31.20.598.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +31.20.598.aaaa ←
14:56:23 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Yves Raimond: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:56:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P3, +31.20.598.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P3, +31.20.598.aaaa ←
14:56:27 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P3 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P3 is me ←
14:56:27 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
14:57:07 <Guus> zakim, +31.20 is me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, +31.20 is me ←
14:57:07 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus; got it ←
14:57:19 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:57:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:57:20 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:57:38 <Guus> zakim, this is RDF
Guus Schreiber: zakim, this is RDF ←
14:57:38 <Zakim> Guus, this was already SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, this was already SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
14:57:39 <Zakim> ok, Guus; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Guus; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
14:58:47 <Zakim> +??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7 ←
14:58:52 <AndyS> zakim, ??P7 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P7 is me ←
14:58:52 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:00:04 <Zakim> +bhyland
Zakim IRC Bot: +bhyland ←
15:00:13 <davidwood> Zakim, bhyland is really me
David Wood: Zakim, bhyland is really me ←
15:00:13 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←
15:00:28 <Zakim> +??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
15:01:01 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:01:05 <Zakim> +Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
15:01:09 <pfps> zakim, ??p8 is me
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, ??p8 is me ←
15:01:09 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps; got it ←
15:01:13 <pfps> ack ??p8
Peter Patel-Schneider: ack ??p8 ←
15:01:21 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me
Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is temporarily me ←
15:01:21 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it ←
15:01:31 <AZ> I'm the scribe, I'm joining the call
Antoine Zimmermann: I'm the scribe, I'm joining the call ←
15:01:39 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:01:39 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:01:40 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:01:40 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:01:47 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
15:01:52 <Zakim> +gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: +gavinc ←
15:02:12 <AZ> Zakim, ??P15 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, ??P15 is me ←
15:02:12 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
15:02:30 <PatH> I will be joining on IRC today but can call in if absolutely needed.
Patrick Hayes: I will be joining on IRC today but can call in if absolutely needed. ←
15:02:38 <Zakim> +??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19 ←
15:02:53 <Zakim> +??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←
15:03:02 <danbri_> zakim, ??P18 is probably danbri
Dan Brickley: zakim, ??P18 is probably danbri ←
15:03:02 <Zakim> +danbri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +danbri; got it ←
15:03:03 <tbaker> zakim, ??P19 is tbaker
Thomas Baker: zakim, ??P19 is tbaker ←
15:03:04 <Zakim> +tbaker; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tbaker; got it ←
15:03:30 <AZ> scribe: AZ
(Scribe set to Antoine Zimmermann)
15:03:35 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:04:10 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: +mhausenblas ←
15:04:14 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me ←
15:04:14 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it ←
15:04:17 <davidwood> Topic: Admin
15:04:20 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 2 May telecon:
David Wood: 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
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-02 ←
15:05:13 <davidwood> Review of actions
David Wood: Review of actions ←
15:05:13 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←
15:05:13 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open ←
15:05:55 <Zakim> + +33.6.66.52.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +33.6.66.52.aabb ←
15:06:07 <pchampin> zakim, aabb is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, aabb is me ←
15:06:08 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:06:30 <gavinc> Closed ACTION-168 as a duplicate
Gavin Carothers: Closed ACTION-168 as a duplicate ←
15:06:36 <sandro> I've made no progress on any of mine, sorry.
Sandro Hawke: I've made no progress on any of mine, sorry. ←
15:07:41 <davidwood> Topic: XMLLiteral
15:07:47 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:07:55 <davidwood> See proposal at:
David Wood: See proposal at: ←
15:07:55 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XML_Literals
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XML_Literals ←
15:08:00 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:08:13 <cygri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0006.html
Richard Cyganiak: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0006.html ←
15:08:17 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
15:08:46 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's noisy? ←
15:08:56 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (8%), AZ (14%), ericP (15%)
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (8%), AZ (14%), ericP (15%) ←
15:09:14 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
(Scribe set to Eric Prud'hommeaux)
15:09:17 <Zakim> +LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF ←
15:09:28 <ericP> cygri: the lexical space need not be canonical, btu well-formed
Richard Cyganiak: the lexical space need not be canonical, btu well-formed ←
15:09:43 <davidwood> • Make rdf:XMLLiteral optional in the datatype map
David Wood: • Make rdf:XMLLiteral optional in the datatype map ←
15:09:43 <davidwood> • Change rdf:XMLLiteral lexical space to allow
David Wood: • Change rdf:XMLLiteral lexical space to allow ←
15:09:43 <davidwood> non-canonical but well-formed XML
David Wood: non-canonical but well-formed XML ←
15:09:43 <davidwood> • Define a canonical lexical form for rdf:XMLLiteral
David Wood: • Define a canonical lexical form for rdf:XMLLiteral ←
15:09:43 <davidwood> that is equivalent to the old lexical space
David Wood: that is equivalent to the old lexical space ←
15:09:44 <davidwood> • Re-define the value space in terms of XML infosets (this
David Wood: • 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
David Wood: should be in 1:1 correspondence to the old value space ←
15:09:48 <davidwood> and old lexical space)
David Wood: 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
... 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)
Richard Cyganiak: (describes rdf:XMLLiteral as found in link) [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
15:10:13 <ericP> ... the value space would be 1:1 on the old values space, but we would want to rephrase the definition
... 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:
... there are two proposals: ←
15:10:31 <ericP> ... .. expresses it in terms of infosets
... .. expresses it in terms of infosets ←
15:10:41 <cygri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0186.html
Richard Cyganiak: 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
... .. and we've just looked at expressing it in terms of DOM trees ←
15:10:57 <ericP> ... DOM trees should be the same thing
... DOM trees should be the same thing ←
15:11:28 <ericP> q+ to ask why DOM (defined in terms of DOM) instead of infoset
q+ to ask why DOM (defined in terms of DOM) instead of infoset ←
15:11:33 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
15:11:39 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:11:52 <ericP> cygri: question is how to define
Richard Cyganiak: question is how to define ←
15:12:19 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask why DOM (defined in terms of DOM) instead of infoset
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask why DOM (defined in terms of DOM) instead of infoset ←
15:12:21 <davidwood> ack ericp
David Wood: ack ericp ←
15:12:41 <gavinc> DOM is not phrased in term of the infoset
Gavin Carothers: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Gavin Carothers: XPath, XQuery, define their own data model [ Scribe Assist by Antoine Zimmermann ] ←
15:13:34 <AndyS> FYI, http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#omitted
Andy Seaborne: FYI, http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#omitted ←
15:13:50 <Zakim> +zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2 ←
15:13:54 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:14:06 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
15:14:06 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted ←
15:14:33 <ericP> gavinc: infoset has no conformance. all specs create their own model
Gavin Carothers: infoset has no conformance. all specs create their own model ←
15:14:39 <ivan> A.isEqualNode(B)
Ivan Herman: A.isEqualNode(B) ←
15:14:42 <ericP> ivan: we asked Liam, who said the same as gavinc
Ivan Herman: 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
... 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
... another issue is whether we want to have an HTML5 literal ←
15:15:48 <Zakim> + +33.9.51.77.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +33.9.51.77.aacc ←
15:15:48 <ericP> ... HTML5 is defines how to parse HTML5 into a DOM
... HTML5 is defines how to parse HTML5 into a DOM ←
15:15:53 <pchampin> zakim, aacc is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, aacc is me ←
15:15:53 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:15:56 <pchampin> zakim, mute me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, mute me ←
15:15:56 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
... 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
... we can chain specs to derive that, but it's complicated and unnecessary ←
15:16:35 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:16:49 <ericP> i'm happy for this choice as long as we have the blessing of Liam
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?
David Wood: is this what steve harris objected to? ←
15:17:18 <ericP> ivan: he had issues with the complexity
Ivan Herman: he had issues with the complexity ←
15:17:29 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: 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.
Ivan Herman: We can define a path from an HTML5 literal to an infoset, but Steve had issues with that level of complexity in RDF. [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
15:17:38 <ericP> ... but it's not required that one implement the equiv
... 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.
Patrick Hayes: 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
... current defn demands that one create canonical XML ←
15:18:19 <davidwood> Ivan: Nobody knows what canonical XML is.
David Wood: 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
... 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-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
15:18:57 <gavinc> +q to add that it doesn't even have to be valid XML
Gavin Carothers: +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
... so with the DOM soln, if tools want equality, they can use the DOM function ←
15:19:32 <davidwood> ack gavinc
David Wood: ack gavinc ←
15:19:32 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to add that it doesn't even have to be valid XML
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Gavin Carothers: if defined in terms of DOM instead of XML C14N, we can leverage the XML error handling ←
15:20:23 <ericP> ... this can help us consume non-well-formed markup
... this can help us consume non-well-formed markup ←
15:20:36 <gavinc> s/HTML5/XML
15:20:43 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:20:57 <gavinc> See http://www.w3.org/community/xml-er/
Gavin Carothers: See http://www.w3.org/community/xml-er/ ←
15:20:58 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:20:58 <ericP> davidwood: richard's proposal exists in the context of needing of an XML datatype
David Wood: richard's proposal exists in the context of needing of an HTML datatype ←
15:21:08 <ericP> ... so we can reduce the need for the XML datatype
... 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
Richard Cyganiak: 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
... 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
David Wood: but we've generally agreed that we'll do it ←
15:22:43 <ericP> cygri: even before that, i propose redefining the XML literal
Richard Cyganiak: even before that, i propose redefining the XML literal ←
15:23:03 <ericP> davidwood: make XML literal optional in the datatype map
David Wood: make XML literal optional in the datatype map ←
15:23:12 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:23:17 <davidwood> Change rdf:XMLLiteral lexical space to allow
David Wood: Change rdf:XMLLiteral lexical space to allow ←
15:23:17 <davidwood> non-canonical but well-formed XML
David Wood: non-canonical but well-formed XML ←
15:23:40 <ericP> ivan: XML literals are not necessarily meant to capture HTML5
Ivan Herman: XML literals are not necessarily meant to capture HTML5 ←
15:23:50 <ericP> davidwood: we don't have an XHMTL type
David Wood: we don't have an XHMTL type ←
15:24:04 <gavinc> XHTML is XML
Gavin Carothers: XHTML is XML ←
15:24:12 <gavinc> HTML is HTML
Gavin Carothers: HTML is HTML ←
15:24:21 <ericP> ... hope
... hope ←
15:24:30 <ericP> s/... hope /
s/... hope / (warning: replacement failed) ←
15:24:55 <gavinc> Polyglut documents are funky and only crazy people like Sam Ruby make them
Gavin Carothers: 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.
Patrick Hayes: 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
Gavin Carothers: 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
David Wood: 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 :-)
Patrick Hayes: 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
Gavin Carothers: "Polyglot" meaning a document that is both application/xhtml and text/html ←
15:26:07 <ericP> ... those are hard to make
... those are hard to make ←
15:26:11 <gavinc> Polyglot too
Gavin Carothers: Polyglot too ←
15:26:31 <ericP> s/Polyglut/Polyglot/
15:26:52 <PatH> I like polyglut. I knew one of them once.
Patrick Hayes: I like polyglut. I knew one of them once. ←
15:27:34 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
15:27:38 <ericP> cygri: old XML value space is XML C14N, which specifies e.g. " vs. ', empty tags vs. tag pairs, etc.
Richard Cyganiak: old XML value space is XML C14N, which specifies e.g. " vs. ', empty tags vs. tag pairs, etc. ←
15:27:39 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:27:44 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:28:06 <ericP> ivan: do we need this canonical lexical form for each datatype?
Ivan Herman: do we need this canonical lexical form for each datatype? ←
15:28:08 <PatH> Are there many users of rdf:XMLLIteral, in fact?
Patrick Hayes: 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.
Patrick Hayes: No, a dtatype does not *need* to hve a cononical form,. It just makes equality checking WAAAAY easier. ←
15:29:20 <PatH> cononical/canonical
Patrick Hayes: cononical/canonical ←
15:29:23 <gavinc> PatH, DOM defines equality checking
Gavin Carothers: 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
Eric Prud'hommeaux: 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)
Andy Seaborne: Users - yes and no. GML literals are XML (but often not legal XMLLiterals) ←
15:29:31 <PatH> Well then fine.
Patrick Hayes: Well then fine. ←
15:29:44 <ericP> ... use cases for the XML Literal analog are a little bit of a stretch
... use cases for the XML Literal analog are a little bit of a stretch ←
15:29:50 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
15:30:18 <ericP> ivan: responding to PatH, DOM-level equiv is easier than C14N equiv
Ivan Herman: responding to PatH, DOM-level equiv is easier than C14N equiv ←
15:30:48 <PatH> OK.
Patrick Hayes: OK. ←
15:30:50 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
15:31:13 <ericP> q+ to ask how equiv is used in anger
q+ to ask how equiv is used in anger ←
15:31:49 <ericP> AndyS: it's clear how canonicalization is used
Andy Seaborne: 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.
Patrick Hayes: 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
... 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
... unfortunetely, many XML literals can't just be pasted ←
15:33:02 <ericP> ... you've moved the problem to someone else
... you've moved the problem to someone else ←
15:33:23 <PatH> +1 ericP
Patrick Hayes: +1 ericP ←
15:33:37 <pchampin> q+
15:33:37 <PatH> Or was it Andy.
Patrick Hayes: 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
David Wood: ok to push to someone else if the string is to be interpreted in someone else's application ←
15:33:56 <PatH> Gotcha
Patrick Hayes: Gotcha ←
15:34:27 <ericP> gavinc: isn't there a clear optomization path?
Gavin Carothers: isn't there a clear optomization path? ←
15:34:42 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:34:52 <davidwood> ack ericp
David Wood: ack ericp ←
15:34:52 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask how equiv is used in anger
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Andy Seaborne: 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
... 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]
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]
David Wood: 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?
Patrick Hayes: 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
... if you canonicalize on use, e.g. SPARQL, we impact those apps ←
15:37:25 <pchampin> zakim, unmute me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, unmute me ←
15:37:25 <Zakim> pchampin should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin should no longer be muted ←
15:37:26 <davidwood> ack pchampin
David Wood: ack pchampin ←
15:37:28 <ivan> pat, if the query engine implements equality of the dom trees, then it should work
Ivan Herman: 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
... it seems easier technically and socially to canonicalize on input ←
15:37:58 <ericP> pchampin: i agree with AndyS's point
Pierre-Antoine Champin: i agree with AndyS's point ←
15:38:18 <ericP> ... prob is folks won't necessarily know it's canonicalized and not take advantage
... 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?
Patrick Hayes: Ivan, OK, then why are we discussing canonicalizing on input? ←
15:38:27 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:38:33 <ericP> ... an option is to have two, one with a restricted lexical space
... an option is to have two, one with a restricted lexical space ←
15:38:34 <ericP> cygri
cygri ←
15:38:39 <ivan> pat, I do not know, that was i was asking, too!
Ivan Herman: 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
Richard Cyganiak: that's what i proposed, but it's not working out ←
15:38:50 <PatH> Ah, pchampin makes good point.
Patrick Hayes: Ah, pchampin makes good point. ←
15:39:00 <ivan> +1 to Richard
Ivan Herman: +1 to Richard ←
15:39:11 <ericP> ... i don't think that requiring canonicalization has worked out
... i don't think that requiring canonicalization has worked out ←
15:39:18 <ivan> c14n in xml literals has proven to be a disaster
Ivan Herman: c14n in xml literals has proven to be a disaster ←
15:39:29 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:39:33 <ericP> pchampin: may it didn't work out 'cause it was the only one available
Pierre-Antoine Champin: 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.
Patrick Hayes: Having a normative requirement to play fair rarely works out. ←
15:39:35 <AndyS> I agree requiring canonicalization has not worked out.
Andy Seaborne: I agree requiring canonicalization has not worked out. ←
15:39:48 <ericP> +1 to pchampin's point
+1 to pchampin's point ←
15:39:54 <pchampin> zakim, mute me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, mute me ←
15:39:54 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin should now be muted ←
15:40:17 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
15:40:21 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:40:35 <ericP> ivan: technically, two types could work, but i don't see the motivating use cases
Ivan Herman: technically, two types could work, but i don't see the motivating use cases ←
15:40:52 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:40:57 <ericP> ... mostly i've seen e.g. excerpts of HTML in RSS, used only for display
... 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
... i don't think we should define another form of these datatypes ←
15:41:27 <pchampin> @ivan: fair enough :)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: @ivan: fair enough :) ←
15:41:27 <ericP> ... anyone could add that type
... anyone could add that type ←
15:41:31 <ericP> q?
q? ←
15:41:36 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:41:40 <ericP> cygri: +1 to ivan
Richard Cyganiak: +1 to ivan ←
15:41:59 <ericP> ... it might be useful to keep the definition of the canonical mapping in the datatype
... 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
... XS datatypes optionally define canonical forms ←
15:42:55 <ericP> ... it's nice to indicate how c14n can be used by interested systems
... 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.
Patrick Hayes: 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
... 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
... 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
... 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.
Patrick Hayes: 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
Richard Cyganiak: 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
PROPOSED: in RDF 1.1 (a) XMLLiterals are optional (b) lexical space consists of well-formed 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?
Peter Patel-Schneider: Q : is this harder than the current situation or easier? ←
15:47:13 <PatH> And for who? (publishers or consumers?)
Patrick Hayes: And for who? (publishers or consumers?) ←
15:47:17 <gavinc> Yes.
Gavin Carothers: Yes. ←
15:47:19 <pfps> easier is good! :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: easier is good! :-) ←
15:47:25 <LeeF> I'm with pfps.
Lee Feigenbaum: I'm with pfps. ←
15:47:28 <zwu2> Are DOM trees unique?
Zhe Wu: Are DOM trees unique? ←
15:47:42 <gavinc> Easier to publish and easier to consume
Gavin Carothers: Easier to publish and easier to consume ←
15:47:45 <Arnaud> zwu2: not necessarily
Zhe Wu: not necessarily [ Scribe Assist by Arnaud Le Hors ] ←
15:47:54 <PatH> I like that this doe not use the word "canonicalize"
Patrick Hayes: I like that this doe not use the word "canonicalize" ←
15:47:57 <Arnaud> only after normalization
Arnaud Le Hors: only after normalization ←
15:47:59 <zwu2> then, which one should we canonicalize into?
Zhe Wu: then, which one should we canonicalize into? ←
15:48:13 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:48:17 <ericP> 1+
1+ ←
15:48:19 <AndyS> Looks best of (difficult) choices to me.
Andy Seaborne: Looks best of (difficult) choices to me. ←
15:48:19 <ericP> q+
q+ ←
15:48:27 <ericP> ivan: i am much more interested in keeping publishing easier
Ivan Herman: i am much more interested in keeping publishing easier ←
15:48:33 <davidwood> ack ericp
David Wood: ack ericp ←
15:48:44 <PatH> +1 ivan
Patrick Hayes: +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
Sandro Hawke: +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)
Ted Thibodeau: (that is, +1 make publishing easier, even at the expense of making SPARQL/consumption harder) ←
15:49:03 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:49:04 <AndyS> q+ to address the SPARQL aspect
Andy Seaborne: q+ to address the SPARQL aspect ←
15:49:30 <gavinc> +q to point out that SPARQL stores can still use C14N
Gavin Carothers: +q to point out that SPARQL stores can still use C14N ←
15:50:38 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:51:19 <ericP> ivan: in RDFa, the test harness uses SPARQL ASK to test a particular pattern
Ivan Herman: in RDFa, the test harness uses SPARQL ASK to test a particular pattern ←
15:51:41 <gavinc> -q
Gavin Carothers: -q ←
15:51:44 <ericP> ... we had immense problems with the SPARQL literals, uneven implementation
... we had immense problems with the XML literals in SPARQL, uneven implementation ←
15:51:57 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
15:51:58 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to address the SPARQL aspect
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to address the SPARQL aspect ←
15:51:59 <ericP> ... it's aleady a mess; we won't make it worse
... 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
Andy Seaborne: i think the SPARQL stores would handle it at load time instead of query time ←
15:52:42 <ericP> would entailment permit that?
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/ ;)
Gavin Carothers: 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?
David Wood: q? ←
15:53:33 <ericP> [ discussion of errors in large uploads ]
[ discussion of errors in large uploads ] ←
15:53:52 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: 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
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
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should no longer be muted ←
15:54:49 <PatH> What does © mean here?
Patrick Hayes: 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
David Wood: i think no one objects to XMLLiteral are optional or lexical space consists of valid XML ←
15:54:57 <MacTed> PatH - client error
Ted Thibodeau: PatH - client error ←
15:55:01 <gavinc> +1 to a, b, c, and +∞ to d
Gavin Carothers: +1 to a, b, c, and +∞ to d ←
15:55:05 <pfps> \me (c)
Peter Patel-Schneider: \me (c) ←
15:55:11 <ivan> pat: my client turned ( c ) into a copyright character:-(
Patrick Hayes: my client turned ( c ) into a copyright character:-( [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ] ←
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
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.
Patrick Hayes: 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.
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
Peter Patel-Schneider: \me that's because it *knew* that you worked for W3C ←
15:55:41 <MacTed> *heh*
Ted Thibodeau: *heh* ←
15:55:44 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:55:59 <davidwood> ack zwu
David Wood: 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.
Patrick Hayes: 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?
zwu, i like the idea of c14n, but is c14n + serialization a unique process? ←
15:56:45 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's noisy? ←
15:56:55 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: 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%)
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Zhe Wu: I want to know if c14n + serialization a unique process ←
15:57:27 <zwu2> actually ericP captured my question, thanks!
Zhe Wu: actually ericP captured my question, thanks! ←
15:57:46 <ivan> A.isEqualNode(B) dom3
Ivan Herman: A.isEqualNode(B) dom3 ←
15:57:56 <ericP> ivan: we don't care, 'cause what counts is the equality in the value space
Ivan Herman: we don't care, 'cause what counts is the equality in the value space ←
15:58:32 <ericP> Arnaud: that equivalence is post-normalization
Arnaud Le Hors: that equivalence is post-normalization ←
15:58:55 <ericP> ... e.g. creating a single text node from a series of text nodes
... e.g. creating a single text node from a series of text nodes ←
15:58:56 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:58:57 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -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.
Patrick Hayes: 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
Richard Cyganiak: not needed 'cause the DOM tree is the result of parsing ←
15:59:13 <davidwood> PatH, yes
David Wood: PatH, yes ←
15:59:30 <zwu2> +1 to PatH
15:59:37 <ivan> Pat that was my point...
Ivan Herman: Pat that was my point... ←
15:59:37 <Zakim> -pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps ←
15:59:51 <PatH> Ivan, then delete ( c )
Patrick Hayes: Ivan, then delete ( c ) ←
16:00:09 <ericP> Arnaud: that's not defined
Arnaud Le Hors: that's not defined ←
16:00:24 <ericP> ericP: i've seen the opposite from MSXML3
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i've seen the opposite from MSXML3 ←
16:00:44 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
16:00:49 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:00:52 <pfps> zakim, ??p6 is me
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, ??p6 is me ←
16:00:52 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps; got it ←
16:00:55 <ericP> davidwood: we could have this same discussion based on, say, a style modification
David Wood: we could have this same discussion based on, say, a style modification ←
16:00:58 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:01:10 <ericP> ... we can never solve this, just assympotically approach it
... we can never solve this, just assympotically approach it ←
16:01:27 <PatH> Davidwood, Oooh yes, lets!
Patrick Hayes: 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."
Gavin Carothers: 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
Ivan Herman: HTML5 spec is very clear about how a document is turned into a DOM ←
16:01:55 <pchampin> zakim, mute me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, mute me ←
16:02:02 <Zakim> +pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin ←
16:02:13 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin should now be muted ←
16:02:22 <ericP> ericP: does HTML5 produce exactly one DOM?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: does HTML5 produce exactly one DOM? ←
16:02:22 <gavinc> see http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#ID-normalize
Gavin Carothers: see http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#ID-normalize ←
16:02:28 <ericP> ivan: assume so
Ivan Herman: assume so ←
16:02:59 <ericP> ... content to take Arnaud's advice about normalizing first
... 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.
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.
Richard Cyganiak: [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.
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?
Patrick Hayes: 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))
<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)
Andy Seaborne: (XSD defines canonical forms -- does not force use) ←
16:05:24 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:05:27 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
16:05:29 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
16:05:30 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
16:05:30 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
16:05:32 <pfps> +epsilon
Peter Patel-Schneider: +epsilon ←
16:05:33 <ericP> +1
+1 ←
16:05:33 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:05:33 <zwu2> -1 to [c]
16:05:34 <PatH> -1
Patrick Hayes: -1 ←
16:05:37 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
16:05:42 <pchampin> +1
16:05:44 <sandro> +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 ←
16:05:55 <PatH> that was -1 to [c], +1 to rest.
Patrick Hayes: that was -1 to [c], +1 to rest. ←
16:06:22 <pfps> Doesn't the current situation require canonicalization?
Peter Patel-Schneider: Doesn't the current situation require canonicalization? ←
16:06:26 <gavinc> Yes.
Gavin Carothers: 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.
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
Richard Cyganiak: 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.
Patrick Hayes: 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.
Andy Seaborne: -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.
Patrick Hayes: 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
Andy Seaborne: 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
Gavin Carothers: PatH, ALL the xsd datatypes define a cononical form ←
16:08:44 <pfps> Does producing (normalized) DOM trees require canonicalization?
Peter Patel-Schneider: Does producing (normalized) DOM trees require canonicalization? ←
16:08:48 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#boolean
Gavin Carothers: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#boolean ←
16:08:53 <gavinc> pfps, no
Gavin Carothers: 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.
Patrick Hayes: 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.
Andy Seaborne: Non-normative section. ←
16:09:53 <gavinc> non-normative refrence to cononical form
Gavin Carothers: non-normative refrence to cononical form ←
16:10:00 <PatH> Exactly
Patrick Hayes: Exactly ←
16:10:00 <Arnaud> one difference between normalized dom and canonical xml for instance is that attributes are not ordered in the dom
Arnaud Le Hors: 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?
Peter Patel-Schneider: 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
Gavin Carothers: 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
Andy Seaborne: i'd be happy with the canonicalization in a non-normative section ←
16:10:34 <PatH> ? Where does it require that??
Patrick Hayes: ? Where does it require that?? ←
16:11:10 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/ ←
16:11:18 <cygri> this is already required in RDF 2004
Richard Cyganiak: 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.
Peter Patel-Schneider: 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
Zhe Wu: 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?
... 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"
Patrick Hayes: 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
Ivan Herman: 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
Gavin Carothers: 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
David Wood: 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
... 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.
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.
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
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:13:43 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
16:13:43 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
16:13:44 <PatH> I still dont kow what [ c] means. Can I publish RDF data using this datatype that is not canonicalized??
Patrick Hayes: I still dont kow what [ c] means. Can I publish RDF data using this datatype that is not canonicalized?? ←
16:13:44 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
16:13:45 <pchampin> +1
16:13:47 <ericP> +1
+1 ←
16:13:47 <zwu2> +1 thanks for the clarifications
Zhe Wu: +1 thanks for the clarifications ←
16:13:50 <gavinc> PatH, yes.
Gavin Carothers: PatH, yes. ←
16:13:52 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
16:13:59 <AndyS> +
Andy Seaborne: + ←
16:14:00 <PatH> Thern =1 from me.
Patrick Hayes: Thern =1 from me. ←
16:14:12 <gavinc> Just as you can write "01" or "1" or "000001"
Gavin Carothers: Just as you can write "01" or "1" or "000001" ←
16:14:15 <pfps> +2epsilon
Peter Patel-Schneider: +2epsilon ←
16:14:19 <danbri> +1
Dan Brickley: +1 ←
16:14:20 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:14:20 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:14:30 <zwu2> very good decoding still David
Zhe Wu: very good decoding skill 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.
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
Arnaud Le Hors: 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.
Patrick Hayes: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:15:16 <Zakim> -yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr ←
16:15:16 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:15:17 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
16:15:17 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
16:15:18 <pchampin> bye
Pierre-Antoine Champin: bye ←
16:15:18 <Zakim> -danbri
Zakim IRC Bot: -danbri ←
16:15:20 <Zakim> -tbaker
Zakim IRC Bot: -tbaker ←
16:15:21 <cygri> thanks all!
Richard Cyganiak: thanks all! ←
16:15:21 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:15:23 <Zakim> -pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps ←
16:15:27 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:15:34 <Zakim> -cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri ←
16:15:37 <Zakim> -gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc ←
16:16:00 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to implement ISSUE-13 resolution in RDF Concepts
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].
Trackbot IRC Bot: 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 :-)
Patrick Hayes: Rather you tahn me, MacTed :-) ←
16:16:34 <Zakim> -ScottB
Zakim IRC Bot: -ScottB ←
16:17:58 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
16:19:44 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
16:20:20 <Zakim> -Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus ←
Formatted by CommonScribe