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 14:53:40 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B02630150@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <phayes@ihmc.us>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


Perhaps it would satisfy Martin if the Primer were to include
a very brief section capturing the difference between view X
and view G and the nature of rdf:parseType="Literal" as a
quoting or escaping mechanism.

It probably also should mention that the persistence of the
irregular treatment for plain literals is legacy based,
perhaps with an example of language scoping based on 
reification.

I do agree with Martin that the treatment of xml:lang in
RDF/XML is imperfect. Though I see the real error being that
xml:lang infects plain literals, not that it does not infect
XML literals.

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 04 July, 2003 14:39
> To: Brian McBride
> Cc: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); phayes@ihmc.us; rdf core
> Subject: Re: XML observation
> 
> 
> 
> (Just rdf core)
> 
> > 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?
> > 
> 
> 
> Let's try brain storming, I am sure Patrick could copy paste 
> one or two out 
> of his earlier post. (but not too much context)
> 
> I'll try ...
> - XML makes no provision for providing xml:lang except on 
> elements. In 
> particular it is not possible to provide xml:lang on mixed 
> content. For 
> legacy reasons rdf:parseType="Literal" takes mixed content. 
> For RDF to 
> provide such a mechanism in this case, would require some 
> special apparatus 
> not required elsewhere in RDF:
>      We have had substantial comment against specific instances of
>      such apparatus:
>    + a speical sort of literal
>      Massimo [1], TBL [2],
>    + a special sort of datatype
>      PFPS [3], (seven comments!)
>    + wrapping
>      Reagle [4]
>      (None of these have commented about the language requirement
>       just a variety of proposed solutions)
>    Each of these comments is sufficient to justify trying a different 
> solution, in total, we note that the only actual use case we 
> have, that
> of embedded xhtml is adequately met by use of span. This is 
> our current 
> solution, and the argument against, that it makes it more 
> difficult for
> someone hand-editing RDF/XML is insufficiently compelling.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSe
p/0165.html

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0092.html

[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0091.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0093.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0088.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0089.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0087.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0086.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0064.html

[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0434.html
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 07:53:43 EDT

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