- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 04 Jul 2003 12:07:33 +0100
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: phayes@ihmc.us, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, duerst@w3.org
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 08:41, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: [...] > These tensions come to a head in cases such as RDF/XML when you > use XML as a markup formalism for a data structure which encapsulates > data that itself uses XML as a markup formalism for document modelling, > since, as Pat points out, XML itself fails to provide any > distinction between the encapsulation and the encapsulated. Aye, here seems to be the (a?) nub; the distinction between a fragment of XML being part of a document and being embedded (is 'quoted' a better term) in it. It is well known that XML has trouble embedding XML inside itself - entities being another case in point. We need to be sure everyone understands what is being said here. Feel free to improve on the following. Consider: [[ This sentence, which refers to the French sentence "La plume de am tante est rouge." is in English. ]] This sentence is true, even though it contains a French sentence, because the French sentence is referred to in the sentence, but is not part of it. I don't think XML has such a mechanism for quoting bits of XML such as in the above sentence, so that contextual attributes such as xml base and xml lang don't apply inside them. Patrick is arguing, I think, that parseType="Literal" is such a mechanism introduced into RDF/XML. [...] > > An RDF literal is precisely that, a *literal*. It should not > be infected with the contextual characteristics of the language > used to describe the data structures which encapsulate it. Martin has argued that it should and spelled out his reasons which I summarized in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0072.html It would be helpful if you could spell out the arguments for why a parseType="Literal" fragment should not inherit xml:lang from its context? Brian
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 07:07:55 UTC