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.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying in this part.

> 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."

I think that text in the spec is somewhat misleading.  If you don't have
parseType=Collection, the order cannot be signicant; if you do, then it
can.  Of course, you can use parseType=Collection and then ignore the
order, but I don't know why that matters for us.

The reason you would want to do that (to use parseType=Collection and
then ignore the order) has to do with closed vs. open world issues.  I
think we're okay on that front.

> However, why you need
> 
> <Const><rdf:value xml:lang="fr">chat</rdf:value><Const>
> 
> instead of
> 
> <Const type="&rif;text">chat@fr</Const>

Are you asking about why type-tagged XML needs Const->value->string
instead of just Const->string, or why I'm proposing using xml:lang?   

In both cases, I think it's a fairly arbitrary matter, and I'm just
suggesting lining up with RDF/XML.   I suppose RDF/XML chose to use the
xml:lang approach for some good reasons, but I don't know what they
were.

     -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 21:24:07 UTC