- From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:08:12 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
The solution proposed by you for in a previous email <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0099>, is present in the actual XML syntax in many parts of it. One goal is to serialize RIF to RDF easily. Another argument is much better management of collections of arguments. <formula> <Atom> <op><Const ... /></op> <args rdf:parseType="Collection"> <Var> ... </Var> <Var> ... </Var> <Const .../> </args> </Atom> </formula> So the role <args> in <Atom> and <Expr> should be appropriate. On the other hand, in RDF Syntax <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-parsetype-Collection> it is stated that "Whether the order of the collection of nodes is significant is an application issue and not defined here." However, why you need <Const><rdf:value xml:lang="fr">chat</rdf:value><Const> instead of <Const type="&rif;text">chat@fr</Const> ? -Adrian G Sandro Hawke wrote: > In today's telecon, it was again mentioned that some folks just don't > like RDF. It was said that the problem with "Rigid RDF" is that it > has the term "RDF" in its name. The point was made that there is a > significant market/perception issue here. > > So let us instead call this proposed style of XML: "type-tagged XML". > The point of type-tagged XML is this: given an XML document in this > form, you can deserialized it into RIF frames (or RDF triples, or > objects in a dynamically-typed language (like Perl or Python), or > relational tables), without any out-of-band information. > > A simple example might be: > > ... > <Person> > <age>42</age> > </Person> > ... > > vs > ... > <Person> > <age rdf:datatype="&xs;int">42</age> > </Person> > ... > > In the first case, it's not clear whether "42" is to be understood as > a string or an integer. In the frame/object/database form, you have > to know, but you don't without consulting some specification or > schema. In the second case, we have type-tagging -- so you know that > "42" is to be converted to an integer. > > To do this, in general, requires knowing the XML schema datatypes of > everything and knowing when things are lists. And knowing that things > are fully-striped (for the object-types, aka "classes"). So, I > suggest the fairly-simply syntax changes I detailed earlier (as "rigid > RDF" [1]) are a good way to do this -- it's a way to do type-tagging > that happens to be aligned with RDF/XML. > > There may be other negatives to this proposal. It still has bits from > the rdf namespace, but the point was made very strongly in the telecon > that XML people are used to random stuff from random namespaces. It > still is a little more verbose. ... Other problems? > > -- Sandro > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0099 > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 07:09:12 UTC