W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: "Type-Tagged XML"

From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:08:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4833CA5C.4060600@tu-cottbus.de>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org

The solution proposed by you for in a previous email 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0099>, is 
present in the actual XML syntax in many parts of it. One goal is to 
serialize RIF to RDF easily. Another argument is much better management 
of  collections of arguments.

             <op><Const ... /></op>
             <args rdf:parseType="Collection">
	       <Var> ... </Var>
               <Var> ... </Var>
               <Const .../>

So the role <args> in <Atom> and <Expr> should be appropriate.
On the other hand, in RDF Syntax 
it is stated that "Whether the order of the collection of nodes is 
significant is an application issue and not defined here."

However, why you need

<Const><rdf:value xml:lang="fr">chat</rdf:value><Const>

instead of

<Const type="&rif;text">chat@fr</Const>


-Adrian G

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> In today's telecon, it was again mentioned that some folks just don't
> like RDF.  It was said that the problem with "Rigid RDF" is that it
> has the term "RDF" in its name.  The point was made that there is a
> significant market/perception issue here.
> So let us instead call this proposed style of XML: "type-tagged XML".
> The point of type-tagged XML is this: given an XML document in this
> form, you can deserialized it into RIF frames (or RDF triples, or
> objects in a dynamically-typed language (like Perl or Python), or
> relational tables), without any out-of-band information.
> A simple example might be:
>     ...
>        <Person>
>            <age>42</age>
>        </Person>
>     ...
> vs
>     ...
>        <Person>
>            <age rdf:datatype="&xs;int">42</age>
>        </Person>
>     ...
> In the first case, it's not clear whether "42" is to be understood as
> a string or an integer.   In the frame/object/database form, you have
> to know, but you don't without consulting some specification or
> schema.  In the second case, we have type-tagging -- so you know that
> "42" is to be converted to an integer.
> To do this, in general, requires knowing the XML schema datatypes of
> everything and knowing when things are lists.  And knowing that things
> are fully-striped (for the object-types, aka "classes").  So, I
> suggest the fairly-simply syntax changes I detailed earlier (as "rigid
> RDF" [1]) are a good way to do this -- it's a way to do type-tagging
> that happens to be aligned with RDF/XML.
> There may be other negatives to this proposal.  It still has bits from
> the rdf namespace, but the point was made very strongly in the telecon
> that XML people are used to random stuff from random namespaces.  It
> still is a little more verbose.  ...  Other problems?
>      -- Sandro
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0099
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 07:09:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:50 UTC