W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2003

RE: XML observation

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:22:42 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B0263014D@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <phayes@ihmc.us>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 04 July, 2003 14:08
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: phayes@ihmc.us; rdf core; duerst@w3.org
> Subject: RE: XML observation
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 08:41, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > These tensions come to a head in cases such as RDF/XML when you 
> > use XML as a markup formalism for a data structure which 
> encapsulates 
> > data that itself uses XML as a markup formalism for 
> document modelling, 
> > since, as Pat points out, XML itself fails to provide any 
> > distinction between the encapsulation and the encapsulated.
> 
> Aye, here seems to be the (a?) nub; the distinction between a fragment
> of XML being part of a document and being embedded (is 
> 'quoted' a better
> term) in it.  It is well known that XML has trouble embedding 
> XML inside
> itself - entities being another case in point.
> 
> We need to be sure everyone understands what is being said here.  Feel
> free to improve on the following.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> [[
> This sentence, which refers to the French sentence "La plume 
> de am tante
> est rouge." is in English.
> ]]
> 
> This sentence is true, even though it contains a French sentence,
> because the French sentence is referred to in the sentence, but is not
> part of it.
> 
> I don't think XML has such a mechanism for quoting bits of XML such as
> in the above sentence, so that contextual attributes such as xml base
> and xml lang don't apply inside them.  Patrick is arguing, I 
> think, that
> parseType="Literal" is such a mechanism introduced into RDF/XML.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > An RDF literal is precisely that, a *literal*. It should not
> > be infected with the contextual characteristics of the language
> > used to describe the data structures which encapsulate it.
> 
> Martin has argued that it should and spelled out his reasons which I
> summarized in:
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0072.html
> 
> It would be helpful if you could spell out the arguments for why a
> parseType="Literal" fragment should not inherit xml:lang from its
> context?

Well, I thought I had. I think Pat also has. If it's not yet clear,
then perhaps someone else can take a stab at it...

Patrick
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 07:22:45 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:42 EDT