Print

Print


On Jan 11, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> Really awesome set of constructive comments. I just want to respond to
> one, particularly relevant to my use case.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:13 PM, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> 5 Why an atomic datatype?
>> 
>> Implicitly, the document seems to take for granted that information in
>> all of these forms should be representable in what XSD refers to as a
>> simple type.  But why?
> 
> Because the expected domain for this spec is, at least in my strong
> view, not limited to XML documents. For my use case (bibliographic
> reference and citation formatting),we have a need to be able to
> represent these sorts of data in RDF (including it's various
> serialization formats), as well as JSON.

That suggests that the scope and goals section of the document
may need work.

But both RDF and JSON have facilities for structured information; less
convenient, perhaps, for some things than XML, but still present.
Surely you don't want to suggest that either is incapable of handling 
this information in a structured way instead of as atoms? 


-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com 
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib                 
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************