Re: [Admin] Agenda for RIF telecon December 4

Dave Reynolds wrote:

> Resend: I replied to just Christian by mistake.]

[Resend: since I did not know whether it was a mistake or not, I replied 
to Dave only]

Dave Reynolds wrote:
 >>   PROPOSED: Resolve issue 42 (rif:text) according to option 1 in
 >> Jos's analysis [6], that is, by keeping rif:text and changing nothing
 >> in it definition
 >
 > That proposal does not resolve the issue. The issue is that in the XML
 >> serialization we will (I presume) use xml:lang not a "@lang"
 >> concatenation; so to resolve the issue in the style of [6]a will also
 >> require text as part of the XML syntax explaining how that syntax
 >> maps into the formal specification. I would prefer to see that text
 >> before agreeing to this resolution.

I suppose that is because there are solutions you would prefer and 
others that you would object to: what would be your prefered solution?

I assumed that the specification for Const with the XML:lang tag would 
look something like (in the style of the definition I used in PRD):

The `Const` element has a required `type` attribute and an optional 
`xml:lang`attribute:
-  The value of the `type` attribute is the identifier of the variable 
symbol space. It must be an absolute IRI
- The value of the `xml:lang` attribute is the identifier of the 
language for the presentation of the Const to the user. It should one of 
the two-letter codes defined in ISO-639. The attribute MUST be omitted 
if the type of the Const is not rif:text (alternatively: a compliant 
implementation MUST ignore the xml:lang attribute...; or anything to 
that effect).
The content of the `Const` element is the constant's name, which can be 
any Unicode character string.

XML Syntax (in pseudo-BNF):

<Const type="IRI" xml:lang="language identifier">
     Unicode character string
</Const>

WHat would be wrong with something like that?

Cheers,

Christian

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 14:57:07 UTC