Re: English Language Tags

[Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>]

John wrote


> Martin writes:
> |A better approach is to use an namespaced element within an appinfo
> |component of the element's annotation, e.g.
>
> Fine, but see below.
>
> and
> |If you really must force RDF on the scenario then put the RDF statement
> |within an adjacent appinfo statement within the same annotation.
>
> That would cerainly work, if you want such information put into the XML
> Schema document in the first place.  In the DCN, such metadata as 'process
> specification' are placed into the RDFS dictionary(*).

Thats the normal way, but it introduces a secondary processor. As you will
see in other messages today, I am against relying on the presence of any
tools other than those available in every web browser.

> So here's the key question: what is the element-type of the ancestor(s) of
> the <appinfo> element you mention?
The definition of the element or attribute that is being defined is always
"one of the ancestors" - not the immediate parent as its always wrapped in
an annotation element, and may be part of a complexType defintion

> If it is an element-type definition,
> then some may be concerned that too many element-types will be defined,
and
> programming would be an expensive nightmare. It is that scenario -- in
> particular -- that the DCN endevours to avoid and, as a result, 'only' 15
> XML element-types are defined in the DCN's DTD, and 'only' 15 RDF Schema
> class-types are defined in the DCN's dictionary.

You can bet your bottom dollar that for ebXML the number will eventually run
into thousands, However, this is beside the point. They are all defined
using the element set defined in W3C XML Schemas, some 30 odd elements.

Martin