Re: "Type-Tagged XML"

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