[XESAM] RDF vs .Desktop
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com
Sun Feb 10 04:58:19 PST 2008
On 09/02/2008, Liam R E Quin <liam at holoweb.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 16:04 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > On 09/02/2008, Liam R E Quin <liam at holoweb.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 09:22 +0200, Gunnar Aastrand Grimnes wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > At the end of the day not so many people will write this format by
> > > > hand.
> > >
> > > A question, though -- how does this work if markup is needed in
> > > names, e.g. for Ruby? Or is that not an issue?
> > >
> > I'm not sure I understand the question here. How could ruby have
> > problems serializing/deserializing a file in a specific format..?
> Ruby here is a form of annotation used in Japanese, and not a
> programming language. It means that what is a plain string
> in English or French may have XML markup in it in Japanese.
> Some metadata formats - including RDF - may have difficulty
> representing "mixed content" - strings with a mix of
> text and markup, like an HTML paragraph.
> Sorry for any confusion!
Uhm, very interesting. I had no idea this existed. As always
WIkipedia is of help :-)
I do not think it will be a problem though. As far as Xesam goes the
only place where RDF/XML is used is in the ontology. This is not meant
to be displayed to the user as is, but is more to be considered
"source code". In this regard I think it is fair to assume that the
field names are in english.
Some dynamic UIs might want to display these field names. If the field
names are to be localized they would have to be so outside the
ontology file(s) though. I don't think that is a problem though.
Another place where XML is used is in the query language, but I don't
expect that to be a problem. Clients should always xml-escape any
externally provided strings they put in a query anyways.
Does this make sense? I am still not 100% sure I understand exactly
how Ruby works. Cheers,
More information about the xdg