[sc34wg3] XTM 2.0: resourceRef vs. resourceData, embedded XML

[Steve Pepper]

For some reason this posting from Lars has not turned up on the
WG3 list, so I am forwarding it myself. Could the administrators
look into the problem, please?

Since this concerns XTM 2.0, please read it carefully and make
your views known. The editors have informed me that they are
behind schedule on preparing the final draft for FDIS, so there
is still a little time for discussion about how we want the
XTM syntax to look in the future.

Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: sc34wg3-bounces at isotopicmaps.org
[mailto:sc34wg3-bounces at isotopicmaps.org]On Behalf Of Lars Heuer
Sent: 15. mars 2006 14:03
To: sc34wg3 at isotopicmaps.org
Subject: [sc34wg3] XTM 2.0: resourceRef vs. resourceData, embedded XML


Hi all,

Comments refer to
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/2005-12-16/

- resourceRef vs. resourceData
  Is this distinction necessary? Why is the datatype xsd:anyURI handled
  seperately from every other datatype?
  Possibilities:
  a) Remove the resourceRef element and use the resourceData for
     xsd:anyURI and all other datatypes
  b) Remove resourceRef and resourceData and introduce an element
     "typedValue"
       typedValue = element typedValue { datatype?, any-markup }
     or just
       value = element value { datatype?, any-markup }

     that is used for all occurrence and variant values.

- Embedded XML
  I wonder if the canonicalization of XML is really necessary.
  Isn't it just enough to put the XML into an <![CDATA[  ]]> section?
     
Best regards,
Lars
-- 
http://semagia.com

_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3 at isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3