RE: Argumentation Interchange and Representation Format [via Argumentation Community Group]

Tom,

Thank you for your questions and comments.  With regard to 
content types and XML namespaces, a simple example with 
regard to differentiating content types and XML namespaces and 
ontologies is that the content type of "application/rdf+xml" which 
indicates RDF graphs in RDF/XML which may contain multiple 
XMLNS and ontologies.  It could be that XMLNS-based and ontology-based 
granularity could enhance the utility of parallel markup, and/or a 
described functionality to list the XMLNS utilized in XML-based <data> objects.

The <data> hypothesis is based, in part, on multipart MIME (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Multipart_messages) and MathML's parallel markup (http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter5.html).  Additionally, OMDoc is an example of a format which includes the use of both
 XSLT and parallel content formats; chapter 6 of the OMDoc 1.3 specification 
document describes structured and parameterized theories.



Kind regards,

Adam



-----

On 2013/04/25 at 1:33 am, Tom Breton said, in response to http://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/2013/04/24/argumentation-interchange-and-representation-format/ :

Maybe
 I’m just not getting it, but I’m puzzled as to why these 
functionalities are argumentation issues. I’m not saying they are not 
useful for representing and communicating arguments, I’m saying that 
they are of general usefulness; what’s specific to us about them?

To
 me, the idea is to "do one thing really well". Surely there are other 
committees that focus on just these functionalities, if by slightly 
different mechanisms.

For instance, maybe I’m just not seeing it,
 but don’t XML namespaces provide the same intermixing of different XMLs
 that “data” is meant to provide?