arne-bdt commented on issue #2473:
URL: https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/2473#issuecomment-2112143480

   > > Is there a "deprecation of parseType"? To me, rdf:parseType="Literal" 
does not seem to be deprecated.
   > 
   > I think deprecation of `rdf:parseType="Statements"` was meant here. 
`rdf:parseType="Literal"` is fine since it's in RDF/XML 1.1.
   > 
   > I'm not familiar with CIM and don't know what the editors were thinking, 
but how can they expect interoperability if their spec is not aligned with 
RDF/XML 1.1? Someone should probably open an issue for CIM.
   
   From what I found, `rdf:parseType="Statements"` cannot be deprecated since 
it was never part of RDF/XML. Using Google, I found one match which explains a 
bit about the history:
   The paper [RDF/XML SOURCE 
DECLARATION](https://inria.hal.science/hal-01154396/document) says:
   
   > [...] In another attempt, (De Vos, 2001) proposed to annotate property 
elements with the attribute rdf:parseType="Statements" to indicate that their 
content is considered the same as the content model of the rdf:RDF element but 
that the statements are in a separate context. [...]
   
   I tried to register for the [CIM user group](https://cimug.ucaiug.org/) to 
report the issue. Unfortunately, I could not find any working interactive 
elements, such as issues, discussions, contact forms, or anything else. Their 
pages seem to be quite restrictive and buggy.
   
   For me, the CIM-DifferenceModels were the primary reason I started using 
Apache Jena. It was then that I first realized that CIM is not merely an XML 
format, but is fundamentally based on the concepts of RDF and graphs. Using 
DifferenceModels in conjunction with hardcoded entities (often generated from 
UML or XSD) is almost impossible or, at least, very cumbersome. 
   A lot of the existing tools and solutions do not treat CIM as being based on 
RDF and graph principles. I suppose that’s why, for instance, there isn’t a 
single ENTSO-E CIM-based data exchange process in place today that supports the 
DifferenceModels. 
   I guess that is also one reason why, over all those years, they did not 
recognize that their DifferenceModel format is not compatible with the RDF/XML 
standard.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to