Re: XML Syntax Issues, xsi:type vs rif:type

>>>> Why are you using "type" (eg rif:type) instead of xsi:type there?
>>> For uniformity reasons: rif:type is more general than xsi:type.
>>> For example, we also have rif:type="rif:local".
>> That's not a problem, xsi:type can be used to refer to any schema 
>> element including user defined ones and so can certainly be used to 
>> refer to one defined in a separate W3C spec.
>>
>> More significant is that the value of xsi:type is a QName whereas 
>> rif:type currently seems to be a curi.
> 
> Yes, I hadn't caught that in the BLD spec before (section 2.1.2).  I'm a
> bit concerned about it because the CURIE spec looks almost two-years
> idle as an internal draft, and because I think one might want to use
> URIs directly in simple software.  I suppose if we use CURIEs we could
> propose another disambiguation technique.  The current draft says that
> when you want CURIEs and URIs in the same spot and the default is URIs,
> then use [...] for CURIES.  But we could could also make the default be
> CURIEs and use <...> for URIs.

I think I would favor not using CURIEs in the XML syntax; only URIs.
The use of CURIEs merely complicates matters, and does not seem to have
any obvious benefits.


Best, Jos

> 
>> I'm happy to use rif:type attribute, seems like a good move to me.
> 
> You don't see a useful synergy with XML tools in using xsi:type?
> 
> What's your take on skipping the "name" stripe?  I have to admit that
> <Const type="foo">bar</Const> reads well, but I'm worried about the
> inconsistency.
> 
>     -- Sandro
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is
thinking with the majority. The second-rate
mind is only happy when it is thinking with
the minority. The first-rate mind is only
happy when it is thinking.
  - AA Milne