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

Re: "Type-Tagged XML"

From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 07:30:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4837A7D9.2050306@tu-cottbus.de>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>         <formula>
>>            <Atom>
>>              <op><Const ... /></op>
>>              <args rdf:parseType="Collection">
>> 	       <Var> ... </Var>
>>                <Var> ... </Var>
>>                <Const .../>
>>              </args>
>>            </Atom>
>>         </formula>
>>
>> So the role <args> in <Atom> and <Expr> should be appropriate.
>>     
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're saying in this part.
>   
I just sustain with your point of view. <args> should be present in 
<Atom> and <Expr>. The reasons are both simple RDF serialization and 
better management of argument collections in atoms and expressions.
>   
>> On the other hand, in RDF Syntax 
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-parsetype-Collection
>>     
>>>  
>>>       
>> it is stated that "Whether the order of the collection of nodes is 
>> significant is an application issue and not defined here."
>>     
>
> I think that text in the spec is somewhat misleading.  If you don't have
> parseType=Collection, the order cannot be signicant; if you do, then it
> can.  Of course, you can use parseType=Collection and then ignore the
> order, but I don't know why that matters for us.
>
> The reason you would want to do that (to use parseType=Collection and
> then ignore the order) has to do with closed vs. open world issues.  I
> think we're okay on that front.
>   
I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.
>   
>> However, why you need
>>
>> <Const><rdf:value xml:lang="fr">chat</rdf:value><Const>
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> <Const type="&rif;text">chat@fr</Const>
>>     
>
> Are you asking about why type-tagged XML needs Const->value->string
> instead of just Const->string, or why I'm proposing using xml:lang?   
>
> In both cases, I think it's a fairly arbitrary matter, and I'm just
> suggesting lining up with RDF/XML.   
I am supporter of liking RDF too and it is clear what you proposed. But 
may be rdf:value  for constants as typed literals  is not necessary i.e.

use both

<Const><rdf:value xml:lang="fr">chat</rdf:value><Const> (for plain literals)

and 

<Const type="xs:int">40</Const> (typed literals) 

and the same for IRIs

<Const type="&rif;iri">p:age</Const> (IRI)

> I suppose RDF/XML chose to use the
> xml:lang approach for some good reasons, but I don't know what they
> were.
>
>      -- Sandro
>   
Adrian G.
Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 05:26:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:49 GMT