- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:21:23 -0400
- To: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- 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. 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