Re: rdf:parseType="literal" vs. rdf:datatype="...XMLLiteral"
On 25/04/2024 07:58, Thomas Francart wrote:
Hello Andy
Le lun. 22 avr. 2024 à 21:03, Andy Seaborne a écrit :
On 22/04/2024 08:02, Thomas Francart wrote:
Hello
This is 3.17.0. Pretty old, due to other dependency with TopQuadrant
SHACL
API.
It's not perfect in 5.0.0 either.
TopQuadrant SHACL is now 4.10.0. It would be good to upgrade because of
XML security issue fixes around Jena 4.3.2.
It is being rejected because it is not legal RDF 1.0. At 1.0, the
lexical space had restrictions (XML exclusive canonicalization) where
is not allowed. It has to be -- there are
various other rules as well.
Thank you, I wasn't aware of this.
Nor was I until I checked!
The RDF 1.0 rules are quite confusing and this comes up from time to
time. At the time there was a DOM so no way to have a defined value
space other than strings and restrict the lexical form by exclusive
canonicalization.
(The DOM wasn't standardized at the time of RDF 1.0 IIRC)
The definition of rdf:XMLLiteral changed at RDF 1.1 to one where any XML
document fragment string is valid.
Seems not all places got updated. Partially, that is because it was
depending on the specific implementation of the Jena RDF/XML parser.
https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/2430
Do you happen to have the SPARQL queries? That part of your report is
related to the value space of RDF XML Literals.
Yes, the query is using the "=" operator :
OK - that will get fixed with
https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/2430
ask {
?uri a .
?uri ?x, ?y.
filter (?x != ?y)
}
This false because use in the filter requires the value and the value is
undefined.
But then using the sameTerm function we don't get the error:
ask {
?uri a .
?uri ?x, ?y.
FILTER ( !sameTerm(?x, ?y) )
}
A proper update to RDF 1.1 may change the value object class (it is
"string" for RDF 1.0, it is, by the spec, DocumentFragment for RDF 1.1;
it could be kept at document fragment toString() in jena. I'd like to
understand the usage to see which change is best).
Andy
BTW It's rdf:parseType="Literal" -- Jena 5.0.0 is not tolerant of lower
case "literal"
And that can be put back to be tolerant on input.
Thanks !
Thomas
Andy
Re: rdf:parseType="literal" vs. rdf:datatype="...XMLLiteral"
Hello Andy
Le lun. 22 avr. 2024 à 21:03, Andy Seaborne a écrit :
>
> On 22/04/2024 08:02, Thomas Francart wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > This is 3.17.0. Pretty old, due to other dependency with TopQuadrant
> SHACL
> > API.
>
> It's not perfect in 5.0.0 either.
>
> TopQuadrant SHACL is now 4.10.0. It would be good to upgrade because of
> XML security issue fixes around Jena 4.3.2.
>
>
> It is being rejected because it is not legal RDF 1.0. At 1.0, the
> lexical space had restrictions (XML exclusive canonicalization) where
> is not allowed. It has to be -- there are
> various other rules as well.
>
Thank you, I wasn't aware of this.
>
> (The DOM wasn't standardized at the time of RDF 1.0 IIRC)
>
> The definition of rdf:XMLLiteral changed at RDF 1.1 to one where any XML
> document fragment string is valid.
>
> Seems not all places got updated. Partially, that is because it was
> depending on the specific implementation of the Jena RDF/XML parser.
>
> https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/2430
>
>
> Do you happen to have the SPARQL queries? That part of your report is
> related to the value space of RDF XML Literals.
>
Yes, the query is using the "=" operator :
ask {
?uri a .
?uri ?x, ?y.
filter (?x != ?y)
}
But then using the sameTerm function we don't get the error:
ask {
?uri a .
?uri ?x, ?y.
FILTER ( !sameTerm(?x, ?y) )
}
>
> A proper update to RDF 1.1 may change the value object class (it is
> "string" for RDF 1.0, it is, by the spec, DocumentFragment for RDF 1.1;
> it could be kept at document fragment toString() in jena. I'd like to
> understand the usage to see which change is best).
>
> Andy
>
> BTW It's rdf:parseType="Literal" -- Jena 5.0.0 is not tolerant of lower
> case "literal"
>
Thanks !
Thomas
>
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > Le sam. 20 avr. 2024 à 18:06, Andy Seaborne a écrit :
> >
> >> Hi Thomas,
> >>
> >> Which version of Jena is this?
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> On 19/04/2024 17:18, Thomas Francart wrote:
> >>> Hello
> >>>
> >>> The RDF/XML parsing of the following succeeds:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >> href="
> >>> https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> while the RDF/XML parsing of this gives an error : in that case the XML
> >> has
> >>> simply be encoded with , and and the rdf:datatype has been
> >>> explicitly set to XMLLiteral :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral
> >> ">amreferencesymbol
> >>> href="https://xx.xx.xx/PC
> >>> "//reference/am
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The error is
> >>>
> >>> 13:08:04.742 WARN org.apache.jena.riot - Lexical form
> >>> 'https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/>'
> >> not
> >>> valid for datatype XSD XMLLiteral
> >>>
> >>> and then further down in SPARQL queries:
> >>>
> >>> 13:08:04.775 WARN o.apache.jena.sparql.expr.NodeValue - Datatype
> format
> >>> exception: "https://xx.xx.xx/PC\
> >>> "/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
> >>>
> >>> The encoded XML is however valid.
> >>>
> >>> Is it possible to explicitely create literals with XMLLiteral datatype
> in
> >>> RDF/XML by setting this datatype explicitely ?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Thomas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
*Thomas Francart* -* SPARNA*
Web de *données* | Architecture de l'*information* | Accès aux
*connaissances*
blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin :
fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart
tel : +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
Re: rdf:parseType="literal" vs. rdf:datatype="...XMLLiteral"
On 22/04/2024 08:02, Thomas Francart wrote: Hello This is 3.17.0. Pretty old, due to other dependency with TopQuadrant SHACL API. It's not perfect in 5.0.0 either. TopQuadrant SHACL is now 4.10.0. It would be good to upgrade because of XML security issue fixes around Jena 4.3.2. It is being rejected because it is not legal RDF 1.0. At 1.0, the lexical space had restrictions (XML exclusive canonicalization) where is not allowed. It has to be -- there are various other rules as well. (The DOM wasn't standardized at the time of RDF 1.0 IIRC) The definition of rdf:XMLLiteral changed at RDF 1.1 to one where any XML document fragment string is valid. Seems not all places got updated. Partially, that is because it was depending on the specific implementation of the Jena RDF/XML parser. https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/2430 Do you happen to have the SPARQL queries? That part of your report is related to the value space of RDF XML Literals. A proper update to RDF 1.1 may change the value object class (it is "string" for RDF 1.0, it is, by the spec, DocumentFragment for RDF 1.1; it could be kept at document fragment toString() in jena. I'd like to understand the usage to see which change is best). Andy BTW It's rdf:parseType="Literal" -- Jena 5.0.0 is not tolerant of lower case "literal" Thomas Le sam. 20 avr. 2024 à 18:06, Andy Seaborne a écrit : Hi Thomas, Which version of Jena is this? Andy On 19/04/2024 17:18, Thomas Francart wrote: Hello The RDF/XML parsing of the following succeeds: href=" https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/> while the RDF/XML parsing of this gives an error : in that case the XML has simply be encoded with , and and the rdf:datatype has been explicitly set to XMLLiteral : http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral ">amreferencesymbol href="https://xx.xx.xx/PC "//reference/am The error is 13:08:04.742 WARN org.apache.jena.riot - Lexical form 'https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/>' not valid for datatype XSD XMLLiteral and then further down in SPARQL queries: 13:08:04.775 WARN o.apache.jena.sparql.expr.NodeValue - Datatype format exception: "https://xx.xx.xx/PC\ "/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral The encoded XML is however valid. Is it possible to explicitely create literals with XMLLiteral datatype in RDF/XML by setting this datatype explicitely ? Thanks Thomas
Re: rdf:parseType="literal" vs. rdf:datatype="...XMLLiteral"
Hello This is 3.17.0. Pretty old, due to other dependency with TopQuadrant SHACL API. Thomas Le sam. 20 avr. 2024 à 18:06, Andy Seaborne a écrit : > Hi Thomas, > > Which version of Jena is this? > > Andy > > On 19/04/2024 17:18, Thomas Francart wrote: > > Hello > > > > The RDF/XML parsing of the following succeeds: > > > > > > > > href=" > > https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/> > > > > > > > > while the RDF/XML parsing of this gives an error : in that case the XML > has > > simply be encoded with , and and the rdf:datatype has been > > explicitly set to XMLLiteral : > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral > ">amreferencesymbol > > href="https://xx.xx.xx/PC > > "//reference/am > > > > > > > > > > The error is > > > > 13:08:04.742 WARN org.apache.jena.riot - Lexical form > > 'https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/>' > not > > valid for datatype XSD XMLLiteral > > > > and then further down in SPARQL queries: > > > > 13:08:04.775 WARN o.apache.jena.sparql.expr.NodeValue - Datatype format > > exception: "https://xx.xx.xx/PC\ > > "/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral > > > > The encoded XML is however valid. > > > > Is it possible to explicitely create literals with XMLLiteral datatype in > > RDF/XML by setting this datatype explicitely ? > > > > Thanks > > Thomas > > > > > -- *Thomas Francart* -* SPARNA* Web de *données* | Architecture de l'*information* | Accès aux *connaissances* blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin : fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart tel : +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
Re: rdf:parseType="literal" vs. rdf:datatype="...XMLLiteral"
Hi Thomas, Which version of Jena is this? Andy On 19/04/2024 17:18, Thomas Francart wrote: Hello The RDF/XML parsing of the following succeeds: https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/> while the RDF/XML parsing of this gives an error : in that case the XML has simply be encoded with , and and the rdf:datatype has been explicitly set to XMLLiteral : http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral;>amreferencesymbol href="https://xx.xx.xx/PC "//reference/am The error is 13:08:04.742 WARN org.apache.jena.riot - Lexical form 'https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/>' not valid for datatype XSD XMLLiteral and then further down in SPARQL queries: 13:08:04.775 WARN o.apache.jena.sparql.expr.NodeValue - Datatype format exception: "https://xx.xx.xx/PC\ "/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral The encoded XML is however valid. Is it possible to explicitely create literals with XMLLiteral datatype in RDF/XML by setting this datatype explicitely ? Thanks Thomas
Re: rdf:parseType="literal" vs. rdf:datatype="...XMLLiteral"
*not* rdf:datatype On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 7:10 PM Martynas Jusevičius wrote: > > AFAIK for XMLLiterals you need to use rdf:parseType="Literal", rdf:datatype: > https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-XML-literals > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 18.18, Thomas Francart > wrote: >> >> Hello >> >> The RDF/XML parsing of the following succeeds: >> >> >> >> https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/> >> >> >> >> while the RDF/XML parsing of this gives an error : in that case the XML has >> simply be encoded with , and and the rdf:datatype has been >> explicitly set to XMLLiteral : >> >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral;>amreferencesymbol >> href="https://xx.xx.xx/PC >> "//reference/am >> >> >> >> >> The error is >> >> 13:08:04.742 WARN org.apache.jena.riot - Lexical form >> 'https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/>' not >> valid for datatype XSD XMLLiteral >> >> and then further down in SPARQL queries: >> >> 13:08:04.775 WARN o.apache.jena.sparql.expr.NodeValue - Datatype format >> exception: "https://xx.xx.xx/PC\ >> "/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral >> >> The encoded XML is however valid. >> >> Is it possible to explicitely create literals with XMLLiteral datatype in >> RDF/XML by setting this datatype explicitely ? >> >> Thanks >> Thomas >> >> >> -- >> >> *Thomas Francart* -* SPARNA* >> Web de *données* | Architecture de l'*information* | Accès aux >> *connaissances* >> blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin : >> fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart >> tel : +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
Re: rdf:parseType="literal" vs. rdf:datatype="...XMLLiteral"
AFAIK for XMLLiterals you need to use rdf:parseType="Literal", rdf:datatype: https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-XML-literals On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 18.18, Thomas Francart wrote: > Hello > > The RDF/XML parsing of the following succeeds: > > > > href=" > https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/> > > > > while the RDF/XML parsing of this gives an error : in that case the XML has > simply be encoded with , and and the rdf:datatype has been > explicitly set to XMLLiteral : > > > > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral > ">amreferencesymbol > href="https://xx.xx.xx/PC > "//reference/am > > > > > The error is > > 13:08:04.742 WARN org.apache.jena.riot - Lexical form > 'https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/>' not > valid for datatype XSD XMLLiteral > > and then further down in SPARQL queries: > > 13:08:04.775 WARN o.apache.jena.sparql.expr.NodeValue - Datatype format > exception: "https://xx.xx.xx/PC\ > "/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral > > The encoded XML is however valid. > > Is it possible to explicitely create literals with XMLLiteral datatype in > RDF/XML by setting this datatype explicitely ? > > Thanks > Thomas > > > -- > > *Thomas Francart* -* SPARNA* > Web de *données* | Architecture de l'*information* | Accès aux > *connaissances* > blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin : > fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart > tel : +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas >
rdf:parseType="literal" vs. rdf:datatype="...XMLLiteral"
Hello The RDF/XML parsing of the following succeeds: https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/> while the RDF/XML parsing of this gives an error : in that case the XML has simply be encoded with , and and the rdf:datatype has been explicitly set to XMLLiteral : http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral;>amreferencesymbol href="https://xx.xx.xx/PC "//reference/am The error is 13:08:04.742 WARN org.apache.jena.riot - Lexical form 'https://xx.xx.xx/PC"/>' not valid for datatype XSD XMLLiteral and then further down in SPARQL queries: 13:08:04.775 WARN o.apache.jena.sparql.expr.NodeValue - Datatype format exception: "https://xx.xx.xx/PC\ "/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral The encoded XML is however valid. Is it possible to explicitely create literals with XMLLiteral datatype in RDF/XML by setting this datatype explicitely ? Thanks Thomas -- *Thomas Francart* -* SPARNA* Web de *données* | Architecture de l'*information* | Accès aux *connaissances* blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin : fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart tel : +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
