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

RE: XML observation

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:42:29 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030708100234.04c82a00@localhost>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

Hello Patrick,

At 11:21 03/07/07 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> > From: ext Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]

> > I would like to answer in more detail, and hope to do so next week,
> > but here just a few points.
> >
> > - Yes, the usage of XML for both textual markup and data is confusing
> >    to many, even many who are working on the specs.
> > - Please note that for parseType="Literal", we are actually mostly
> >    dealing with textual markup, not with data, and it is not only not
> >    adequate, but plain backwards to raise the 'data issue' to suppress
> >    the conventions that XML has for textual markup.
>
>On the contrary, it is because RDF/XML is a data markup language,
>not a textual markup language, that this 'data issue' is precisely
>relevant.

RDF (and therefore RDF/XML) is indeed mainly designed for data.
But parseType="Literal" is different. Actually, if RDF were only
for 'pure' data, parseType="Literal" would never have been put
into M&S. So parseType="Literal" and XML literals are the missing
piece that allows to bridge both worlds.

>And by what basis do you presume that all XML literals will
>constitute natural language textual content?!

Well, maybe not all. But a lot. Natural language text and
mixed content. That's what's not covered well in the rest
of RDF. Sticking data-oriented XML into a parseType="Literal"
will be done mainly by people who didn't understand RDF
in the first place.

Also, when discussing this very topic in Budapest with Jeremy
and Brian, I got told that they had never seen anything else
than html in parseType="Literal", and were using that as an
argument that using <html:span> as a wrapper would always
be fine. We would appreciate if the RDF Core WG would be
able to at least agree on some basics.


>But in this final moments, to the degree we are able, we
>should try to minimize those errors and not use them
>as justification for proliferating them or their like
>further.

We may agree or disagree on what the correct model is.
But it seems strange that you are happy with an inconsistent
system, as far as you just got some of your points.
It may be much better for you to acknowledge that the
model is different (as originally designed!), and that
a consistent approach has a lot of advantages.


Regards,    Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 13:56:05 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:43 EDT