[oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup

Arthur Ryman ryman at ca.ibm.com
Wed Aug 31 09:17:38 EDT 2011


Dave/Randy,

Thx for persisting on this point. It turns out that the W3C RDF Validator 
is in fact displaying markup characters in strings wrong. It is escaping 
them. You can see the correct, unescaped, results by turning on the 
Advanced option of N-Triples output.

This discussion has made me realize that my suggested name for a new 
oslc:htmlEncodedTitle property is misleading. Encoding is only required 
when you put the triple in an XML document., e.g. the OSLC compact 
rendering resource  The encoding is removed by the parser and you end up 
with the unescaped string. Since we are defining RDF predicates, the 
reference to encoding is inappropriate because there is no encoding at the 
RDF value level.

We therefore have the following alternatives for markup in the title:

1. Use XML Literal datatype and XHTML content.
2. Define a new datatype for HTML
3. Define a new predicate for HTML titles, e.g. oslc:htmlTitle

Using HTML within the context of the UI preview is OK since the UI is 
expected to be a web UI and you'd just copy the string.

However, I think using HTML in RDF is not a good idea because all readers 
of the data would then have to cope with it, I mentioned that Tidy could 
be used by the writer of the data to convert it to XHTML. That does not 
mean this is practical for all readers of the data. In general, when you 
are designing a format for interoperability, you should convert diverse 
formats into one common format. We should therefore adopt XHTML as the one 
common format for marked up text interchange.

Recall that HTML is only one alternate format. We also have sources that 
produce rich text (RTF), and wiki text. Agreeing on XHTML is a useful 
simplification.

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

Arthur Ryman 

DE, PPM & Reporting Chief Architect
IBM Software, Rational 
Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) 





From:
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA
To:
Dave Steinberg/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA
Cc:
oslc-core at open-services.net, oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
Date:
08/30/2011 05:49 PM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Dave,

My point was that when you use rdf:datatype, the content of the element 
must be a string, not XML. When you use rdf:parseType="Literal" the 
content is expected to be XML. In the RDF data model, the lexical space of 

XML consists of well-formed XML fragments, i.e. there is no escaping other 

than that required by XML.

You managed to get the rdf:datatype case to validate by escaping the XML 
markup, i.e. turning it into a string, which seems like unnecessary work 
if you already have an XML fragment.

BTW, I don't understand why the W3C RDF Validation service is displaying 
the XML content as escaped. That means the data is actually 
double-escaped. I'd be happier seeing plain text  N-Triples or Turtle.

It seems to me that since RDF/XML is well-formed XML, then the natural way 

to include XML literals is as XML, not as a string that contains escaped 
XML markup. However, I concede your point that in principle we don't need 
rdf:parseType="Literal"  if you are sure that we get exactly the same set 
of triples using just rdf:datatype. If so, you are correct in saying that 
rdf:parseType="Literal" is just syntactic sugar.

I see where you are going with this. You want OSLC to create a new 
datatype for HTML and you are demonstrating that rdf:datatype gives you 
the mechanism to do this. As I said before, creating a new datatype will 
limit interoperability since other processors will not know how to process 

the new datatype. There is no standard way to define the meaning of a new 
RDF datatype.

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 


Arthur Ryman 

DE, PPM & Reporting Chief Architect
IBM Software, Rational 
Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) 





From:
Dave Steinberg/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA
To:
oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:
08/26/2011 05:31 PM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Hi Arthur,

Sorry, but I just don't agree. The two links you gave are both to the 
RDF/XML spec, and they describe a special syntax for XMLLiteral-typed 
literals and a general syntax for typed literals. They do not state that 
the general syntax cannot be used for the case of XMLLiteral, and they 
don't say anything that contradicts my understanding of the RDF abstract 
data model.

Indeed, if you follow the "XML literals" link in Section 2.8, the RDF 
Concepts spec defines XMLLiteral, like any other datatype, with a lexical 
space, a value space and a mapping between the two. So, given any XML 
value, what is to prevent you from using that mapping to compute a 
corresponding lexical form, combining it with the datatype URI, and using 
the ordinary literal notation (in any RDF concrete syntax)?

I just tried entering the following two RDF/XML documents into the 
validation service:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:rdf="
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.com/bugs/2314">
<dcterms:title rdf:parseType="Literal" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
"> 12345: <s>Null pointer exception during startup</s></dcterms:title>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:rdf="
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.com/bugs/2314">
<dcterms:title rdf:datatype="
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral"> 12345: <s 
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Null pointer exception during 
startup</s></dcterms:title>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

It yielded exactly the same result in both cases:



I can also confirm Steve's claim that Jena can be configured to write out 
exactly the same triples using either syntax.

Cheers,
Dave

-- 
Dave Steinberg
IBM Rational Software
davidms at ca.ibm.com


Arthur Ryman---08/26/2011 03:58:51 PM---Dave, No, it's not just syntactic 
sugar. You need rdf:parseType="Literal" if you include element con


From:

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM

To:

Dave Steinberg/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA

Cc:

oslc-core at open-services.net, oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net

Date:

08/26/2011 03:58 PM

Subject:

Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup


Dave,

No, it's not just syntactic sugar. You need rdf:parseType="Literal" if you 

include element content. If you use rdf:datatype then only character 
content is allowed.

This is explained in the spec at [1] and [2]. rdf:parseType="Literal" 
allows XML Literal content. rdf:datatype="whatever" allows string content.

However, since specs are hard to understand, I suggest you convince 
yourself of this, as I did, by using the W3C RDF Validation service. [3]

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-XML-literals
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-datatyped-literals
[3] http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 


Arthur Ryman 

DE, PPM & Reporting Chief Architect
IBM Software, Rational 
Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) 


Dave Steinberg---08/26/2011 03:22:10 PM---Arthur, I believe you're 
mistaken. I think that parseType="Literal" is just


From:

Dave Steinberg/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA

To:

oslc-core at open-services.net

Date:

08/26/2011 03:22 PM

Subject:

Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup

Sent by:

oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Arthur,

I believe you're mistaken. I think that parseType="Literal" is just 
syntactic sugar (RDF Primer: "RDF/XML provides a special notation to make 
it easy to write literals of this kind"). Either way you write it, you end 

up with the same statement. Two statements with the same subject, the same 

predicate and a typed literal with the same type (<
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral>) and the same 
lexical form are indistinguishable.

Also, if you were correct, parseType="Literal" would provide RDF/XML with 
some sort of privileged XMLLiteral representation that couldn't written 
out using any other RDF notation.

Cheers,
Dave

-- 
Dave Steinberg
IBM Rational Software
905-413-3705
davidms at ca.ibm.com


Arthur Ryman---08/26/2011 02:22:29 PM---Randy, Your example makes the 
content a string that looks like XHTML, i.e. the

From:

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM

To:

Randy Hudson/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS

Cc:

Dave Steinberg <davidms at ca.ibm.com>, oslc-core at open-services.net, 
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net

Date:

08/26/2011 02:22 PM

Subject:

Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup



Randy,

Your example makes the content a string that looks like XHTML, i.e. the 
content contains no XHTML elements since all the markup characters are 
encoded. A string is simply parsed character data and is valid XML.

The correct way to include the XHTML elements is:

<dcterms:title rdf:parseType="Literal"> 12345: <s xmlns="
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Null pointer exception during 
startup</s></dcterms:title>

The OSLC Guidelines about escaping are for the case where you need to 
include characters that might get misinterpreted as XML markup. For 
example, consider a math statement like "1 < 2". When you put that in an 
XML element, you need to encode it as "1 < 2"

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 



Arthur Ryman 

DE, PPM & Reporting Chief Architect
IBM Software, Rational 
Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) 





From:
Randy Hudson/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
To:
Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com>
Cc:
Dave Steinberg <davidms at ca.ibm.com>, oslc-core at open-services.net, 
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
Date:
08/25/2011 07:06 PM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup


The following input is also equivalent:

<dcterms:title rdf:datatype="
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral"> 12345: <s 
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Null pointer exception during 
startup</s></dcterms:title>

So there are (at least) two different ways to serialize a property value 
of type XML literal.  But, the OSLC guidelines state:

1.2 If property value is a Literal value-type 
1.2.1 Inside the XML element add the value as a string with any required 
escaping 

That would seem to suggest that the above form should be used.

-Randy




From:
Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com>
To:
Dave Steinberg <davidms at ca.ibm.com>
Cc:
oslc-core at open-services.net, oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
Date:
08/25/2011 04:34 PM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Dave,

1. XML Namespaces. 

RDF/XML is well-formed XML so it must support namespaces correctly. For 
triples whose datatype is XML Literal, the value of this literal is a 
well-formed XML fragment, and therefore the namespaces should be present 
in the content. If there is an enclosing <span> element, then the 
namespace should be there. Otherwise, each element in the content should 
have the namespace. 

The spec doesn't say "for XHTML, you need to insert an xmlns attribute for 



http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" because that is part of the XHTML standard, 
i.e. it's not XHTML unless the elements are in the XHTML namespace. 

2. Jena

I loaded the sample RDF/XML  into Fuseki which uses Jena and it produced 
the correct result. I assume the Jena API lets you get an XML DOM from the 



literal value.

The input contained:    <dcterms:title rdf:parseType="Literal" xmlns="
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> 12345: <s>Null pointer exception during 
startup</s> </dcterms:title>

The output value is:   " 12345: <s xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
">Null pointer exception during startup</s> "^^<
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral>

3.  XHTML versus HTML

The primary reason is that RDF supports XHTML via the XMLLiteral datatype. 



There is no parsing support for HTML built into RDF.

Another strong reason is that the syntax of HTML is very irregular and 
hard to parse correctly - that is one of the reasons XML was invented. 
This is very important from a security viewpoint. To guard against script 
injection attacks, you really should parse the input and remove any 
<script> elements or Javascript attributes. Doing that correctly for HTML 
requires a full HTML parser. On the other hand, the XHTML is given to you 
as a DOM which you can easily traverse or process using XSLT or XPATH.

4. Datatypes

The specs do specify the datatypes for some properties. Look at the 
Value-Type column of the tables, e.g. [1]. You need to include the 
datatype explicitly for ints, dates, XML. etc. You specify that using 
rdf:datatype in RDF/XML, or using ^^ in Turtle. 

I don't know what the state of adoption is. We really should get some test 



suites written for the specs.

5. Inventing new Datatypes

The RDF spec defines the XSD datatypes and the XMLLiteral datatype. RDF 
parsers know how to parse those. If someone introduces a new datatype URI, 



it could break parsers since they won't know how to parse the contents. 
There is no standard way to define new datatypes. 

Try it with the RDF Validation service [2]

[1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecAppendixA
[2] http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 




Arthur Ryman 

DE, PPM & Reporting Chief Architect
IBM Software, Rational 
Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) 





From:
Dave Steinberg/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA
To:
oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:
08/24/2011 03:05 PM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Hi Arthur,

Thanks for the response. Apologies for being slow in replying; I've been 
out sick for the last day and a half.

I agree that putting the XML namespace on the enclosing element would be a 



convenience, but only if tools supported that. As far as I could find, 
Jena provides no fine-grained access to namespace declarations (i.e. other 



than at the model level), so I believe that one couldn't use it to produce 



or consume the fragment that you suggested. Moreover, the other RDF 
representations offer no such convenience, even in theory.

So, it seems to me that the suggestion to use a namespace was actually a 
pretty significant one, and not one that's reflected in the specs, since 
you'd always need an enclosing element for your XML content.

Thanks for the suggestion of using Tidy to convert from HTML to XHTML. 
That was very helpful for me. But I must admit, I'm still left wondering 
what makes XHTML superior to HTML for interchanging formatted text, 
especially in light of the compact representation example and my own 
experiences, where the opposite seems to be true.

One last thing that I'll emphasize is that I mentioned a lack of guidance 
in the OSLC specs specifically about plain vs. typed literals. It seems so 



odd to me that plain literals seem to be favoured everywhere, except when 
in comes to using XMLLiteral with rdf:parseType="literal", but none of 
this is acknowledged or explained anywhere. It looks like using a typed 
literal in this one case is accepted merely as a requirement to benefit 
from the prettier RDF/XML syntax for XML content. However, I view things 
completely in the opposite light. To me, typed literals are a powerful 
benefit of RDF. You can use a typed literal to decide how to handle a 
literal value, without looking at the value itself, but that advantage is 
lost without a sufficiently specific type. Thus, I don't understand how 
defining and using a new RDF datatype to identify something as widely 
recognized and understood as HTML would impair interoperability. I think 
it would do the opposite.

Cheers,
Dave

-- 
Dave Steinberg
IBM Rational Software
davidms at ca.ibm.com


Arthur Ryman---08/23/2011 10:09:55 AM---Dave, Thx for the comments.


From:

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM

To:

Dave Steinberg/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA

Cc:

oslc-core at open-services.net, oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net

Date:

08/23/2011 10:09 AM

Subject:

Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup


Dave,

Thx for the comments.

I agree that the guidance on using XMLLiteral is not very clear in the 
spec. There was a lot of discussion about this at the time the spec was 
under development, but not much of that discussion survived the editorial 
process. The only place I see it is in the appendix on standard properties 



- dcterms:title and dcterms:description. [1]

The guidance was that dcterms:title should be valid XHTML <span> content 
and dcterms:description valid XHTML <div> content. This means that the RDF 



datatype should be XMLLiteral and that appropriate namespaces should be 
used for XHTML content.

Putting the XHTML namespace on the enclosing element is a convenience. The 



parser should propagate that to the content, i.,e. when you look at the 
triples, the XML literal node should have the inherited namespace. 

If you wanted the namespace directly in the content then you could enclose 



the content in a <div> or <span> and put the namespace there.

Using XHTML is the best way to achieve interchange of formatted text. 
There are converter from HTML to XHTML, e.g. Tidy. However, in the case of 



preview, why would conversion be needed? Shouldn't we be defining content 
that is XHTML?

In another use case, people wanted to use native Wiki text as the content. 



However, that would cause a big interop problem since there are many Wiki 
syntaxes. All of these are convertible to XHTML since that is what the 
Wikis do to display the formatted result. In another use case, people 
wanted to include Rich Text.

The general theme is that developers want to use whatever native format 
their tool supports, e,g, HTML, wiki text, and Rich Text, since it avoids 
conversions. However, this would couple the resource to the tool. OSLC is 
trying to achieve interoperability among heterogeneous tools. Therefore a 
common rich text format is needed.

The alternative of defining new RDF datatypes for HTML, wiki text, RTF 
etc. would mean that OSLC resources would not be understood by other 
applications. In general, the creation of new RDF datatypes is discouraged 



since it impairs interoperability.

[1] 
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecAppendixA?sortcol=table;up=#Dublin_Core_Properties





Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 




Arthur Ryman 


DE, PPM Chief Architect

IBM Software, Rational 

Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 
Twitter | Facebook | YouTube




Dave Steinberg---08/23/2011 12:06:32 AM---Hi all, I've been following this 



thread with interest, as it touches on some of the


From:

Dave Steinberg/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA

To:

oslc-core at open-services.net

Date:

08/23/2011 12:06 AM

Subject:

Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup

Sent by:

oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Hi all,

I've been following this thread with interest, as it touches on some of 
the more general confusion/discomfort I've been developing over the past 
several weeks or months about the use of XMLLiteral with 
rdf:parseType="Literal" for HTML content.

Adam's comments below are particularly interesting. In general, it's not 
clear to me who benefits from the use of the unescaped literal 
representation, or in what scenario. And that approach, then, requires the 



use of the XMLLiteral type, which I also wonder about (as I'll explain 
further). If there is some benefit that I don't know about, perhaps it 
derails this whole line of thought. But if there isn't, could this be a 
case of the concrete representation tail wagging the abstract syntax dog?

One thing that always struck me as odd was that rdf:parseType="Literal" 
examples were the only ones I could find anywhere in OSLC that use typed 
literals (the XMLLiteral type is implicit with this special RDF/XML 
syntax). Moreover, I couldn't find any guidance in the specs about the use 



of plain vs. typed literals at all. From the perspective of a client, 
anyway, it would seem a very nice thing if a particular provider would use 



a typed literal to tell you that a title, for example, should be treated 
as a simple string or as HTML content. And that's the very thing that 
typed literals do. It could be that the presence of an XMLLiteral type is 
supposed to signal the use of XHTML content, and the absence of any type 
is supposed to signal plain text. But I couldn't find that spelled out 
anywhere -- if it is, perhaps it's hard to find, or perhaps I just did a 
poor job of looking -- and I'd argue it would be better to include types 
in both cases. [1]

It's this line of thinking that leads me to question the use of XMLLiteral 



in the first place. I saw in some old discussions that the intention in 
OSLC was not for XMLLiteral to imply XHTML necessarily. Using it for other 



XML languages was considered and endorsed, in principle. But where does 
that leave XHTML? With a type that doesn't really say what it is or what 
you can do with it. We have specs that communicate the XHMTL intent in 
words, but we also have a mechanism built into RDF that could communicate 
this, and we're not really using it fully. Thus, I think it would be 
preferable to define and use a type that specifically represents HTML. And 



note, I suggest HTML, not XHTML, since using any type other than 
XMLLiteral eliminates the "benefit" of the special rdf:parseType="Literal" 



syntax. And without that, I don't see a particular benefit in the stricter 



XHTML syntax.

One other possibility that I've considered, which Arthur suggested 
previously, is using a namespace to identify that the XML is XHTML, in 
particular, instead of doing it directly in the literal type. And I 
believe that, strictly, the XHTML namespace is required for the elements 
to be valid XHTML. But I found no hint of this in the spec or any 
examples, and certainly RTC doesn't do this (I haven't checked other 
providers). Moreover, I believe it's also a worse approach, since there's 
no guarantee that your RDF runtime of choice will give you access to 
namespaces declared on the property element (I don't believe Jena does), 
and detecting a namespace inside the element content would require 
actually parsing the value as XML. If all you want to do is pass markup 
along for display in a browser, it would be unfortunate to have to 
actually parse the content to determine that it's XHTML.

And this is where I close the loop on my thinking, by coming back to how a 



consumer might actually want to make use of HTML content. Even outside of 
the compact rendering scenario, ultimately it's probably going to get 
displayed by a browser, whether as part of a larger Web page or in a 
browser-backed widget in a rich client. And for that, HTML is probably 
just as good as, if not better than, XHTML. Rather than worrying about 
whether the content is well-formed XML, it's probably sufficient to just 
give it to the browser and see what it can do with it. I would assert that 



"something a browser can render" has been the working definition of HTML 
for a good number of years now, while XHTML has largely faded in 
importance.

Going the other way, the appeal of HTML really shows. If a provider 
natively deals with HTML (without concern for XML well-formedness), it 
would be attractive to not have to convert that into XHTML to expose it 
via OSLC. Likewise, a consumer may use a rich text control that yields 
HTML. Generalized parsing of HTML for conversion to XHTML is non-trivial, 
and it seems unfortunate to impose that conversion task onto everyone, 
just so that we can use rdf:parseType="Literal" in RDF/XML and avoid 
applying normal XML encoding to markup content (of course, some encoding 
will likely be required for other RDF syntaxes anyway).

So, those are my thoughts on this (admittedly enlarged) topic. Even if 
they all do make perfect sense (and I'm not necessarily claiming they do), 



I realize we may be well past the point of being able to act on them. 
Still, I thought I'd put them out there and see what others make of them.

Cheers,
Dave


[1] In fact, I think that the consistent use of typed literals in general 
would be beneficial. You could even imagine exploiting them as a 
compatibility measure, if it was decided that the type of a property 
needed to change. This is a related, but separate, topic, which I'd be 
thrilled to discuss further, but I don't want to open too many cans of 
worms at once.

[2] Or, perhaps, a less kind way of putting that is that the XHTML 
namespace is required for the elements to 

-- 
Dave Steinberg
IBM Rational Software
davidms at ca.ibm.com


Adam Archer---08/22/2011 06:20:05 PM---The big concern to me is not the 
ability to process the RDF/XML with XPath, it's the ability to do

From:

Adam Archer/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA

To:

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA

Cc:

"oslc-core at open-services.net" <oslc-core at open-services.net>, Randy Hudson 
<hudsonr at us.ibm.com>, oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net

Date:

08/22/2011 06:20 PM

Subject:

Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup

Sent by:

oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



The big concern to me is not the ability to process the RDF/XML with 
XPath, it's the ability to do so in a browser environment. Currently all 
implementations of all rich hovers in all Jazz based products encode any 
html tags in their dcterms:title attributes (and doubly encode special 
characters). For the consumer on the browser side, this means simply 
taking the content of the attribute, decoding it (which browsers are very 
good at) and slapping the result into the dom (which browsers are also 
very good at). 

The alternative would be a total consumability nightmare from the point of 



view of a browser (which is the most important consumer of this entire 
spec). If the tags are actually child nodes in the xml representation, it 
means we will have child elements in the resulting document that we get 
back from the xml http request which means we will have to traverse a dom 
tree and recreate a structure which could easily be represented as an 
escaped string, like everyone is doing today. 

I realize that implementation is not supposed to lead the spec, but I 
don't even think that would be the case here. The oslc compact spec grew 
organically out of the old jazz compact rendering spec which can be found 
here: 

https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/Sandbox/CompactRenderingV1P1 

If we look at the semantic description of the dc:title and jp:abbreviation 



it states explicitly that the content MUST be escaped: 

> The HTML markup MUST be escaped; for example, "<b>" as "<b>". 

This decision was made consciously for very well defined technical reasons 



(discussed above) in the original spec. If that decision was reversed in 
the creation of the OSLC compact spec then I believe that to have been a 
huge mistake and would like to see the spec fixed rather than for all 
providers to have to change how their compact documents are served and all 



consumers to have to go to the trouble of walking the dom to determine 
what the provider is actually trying to show. 

Adam Archer
Jazz Developer
IBM Toronto Lab 



From: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM 
To: Samuel Padgett <spadgett at us.ibm.com> 
Cc: Adam Archer/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA, Randy Hudson <hudsonr at us.ibm.com>, 
"oslc-core at open-services.net" <oslc-core at open-services.net>, 
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net 
Date: 08/22/2011 04:40 PM 
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup 


Sam, 

You wrote: 

It's very difficult to parse the former using XPath. For instance, the
expression "/oslc:Compact/dcterms:title" takes out the "<s>" and "</s>"

I don't think problems using XPath are a valid reason to encode markup 
since RDF/XML itselt is very difficult to process using XPath. At one 
point we tried to define an OSLC-variant of RDF/XML that looked like 
"normal" XML. However, we abandonned that and now require support for 
generic RDF/XML. 

The are many equivalent ways to represent a given set of triples in 
RDF/XML. It would therefore be very problematic to use XPath, XSLT, or 
XQuery to process RDF/XML. The safe way to process RDF/XML is to use an 
RDF toolkit like Jena. 

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 




Arthur Ryman 


DE, PPM Chief Architect 

IBM Software, Rational 

Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 
Twitter | Facebook | YouTube






From: 
Samuel Padgett <spadgett at us.ibm.com> 
To: 
"oslc-core at open-services.net" <oslc-core at open-services.net> 
Cc: 
Adam Archer/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA, Randy Hudson <hudsonr at us.ibm.com> 
Date: 
08/07/2011 01:01 PM 
Subject: 
[oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup 
Sent by: 
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net





I believe the spec is a bit confusing when it comes to titles with markup
for UI Preview.

The Compact representation has a dcterms:title property. It's defined as 
an
XML Literal that can contain XHTML markup [1]. My understanding of XML
Literals as discussed in the RDF Primer [2] means a title with markup 
would
look like this,

<dcterms:title>12345: <s>Null pointer exception during
startup</s></dcterms:title>

The example [3] of this resource has a title like this, however,

<dcterms:title> 12345: <s>Null pointer exception during
startup</s> </dcterms:title>

The example doesn't seem to fit with the description.

It's very difficult to parse the former using XPath. For instance, the
expression "/oslc:Compact/dcterms:title" takes out the "<s>" and "</s>"
Most implementations I'm aware also follow the example where markup is
encoded. It means special characters need to be "double encoded." For
instance, "12345: Values > 1000 incorrectly calculated" would be,

<dcterms:title>12345: Values &gt; 1000 incorrectly
calculated</dcterms:title>

I think we should add more clarity to the spec here, as getting this wrong
can open up consumers to cross-site scripting attacks. I'd also suggest we
say that providers MUST NOT use any markup with a <script> tag and 
consumer
MUST NOT display any markup with a <script> tag to guard against this
problem.

Best Regards,
Sam


[1]
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreUiPreview?sortcol=table;up=#Representation_Compact




[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax/#xmlliterals
[3]
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreUiPreview?sortcol=table;up=#XML_Representation_Format






_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net

_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net

_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net


_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net




_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net




_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.n et/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net


_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net




_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net






More information about the Oslc-Core mailing list