OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

 


 

   Re: [xml-dev] Tags and Types (was Re: [xml-dev] Re: maps)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

> Joe English wrote:
> 
> >
> > Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >
> > > Different formats each have their advantages. The clear advantage of
> > > explicit tags, is that the meaning is less ambiguous. e.g.
> > >
> > > <date>
> > >     <day>02</day>
> > >     <month>02</month>
> > >     <year>01</year>
> > > </date>
> > >
> > > vs.
> > >
> > > "02-02-01"
> >
> > In the first example, did you mean 1 CE or 2001 CE?
> > If the former, under which calendar should the day
> > and month be interpreted?
> 
> I've not specified, but that isn't needed. The former example is tagged, and
> so the "01" may easily be interpreted with respect to the <year> element,
> and its associated semantics (for example a schema might tell us, or a
> namespace name might reference something like
> 
> <div id="year"><p>Years in the Christian calender, to which 2000 is
> added</p></div>

I see no reason why the exact same provision cannot be made in the case of

<date>2002-08-06</date>

In the schema, you can say:

"A date formatted as specified in ISO-8601"

BTW, I always used

2002-08-06

On purpose

*you* came up with "02-02-01", which, as well as your XML representation, has 
well-known problems in the general case.


> > Sorry, I really don't see any decrease in ambiguity
> > in the first form.
> >
> 
> Ambiguity is _decreased_ not eliminated because aside from which year we are
> talking about we know which lexical value is intended to represent _some
> year_ as opposed to _some day_.

I also don't see any reduction in abiguity.  You have explicitly put into the 
instance data that is well-documented in ISO-8601.  You've only moved the 
authority, and I personally prefer the "YYY-MM-DD" form because it leaves the 
authority where it belongs.

> If it didn't reduce ambiguity _some_ then there would hardly be a need for
> XML, or SGML for that matter.

Can you justify this statement?  Seems a leap to me.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - 
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra
ry/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF - 
http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A
1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC






 

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS