afs commented on issue #2473: URL: https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/2473#issuecomment-2115297139
Hi @arne - thank you for the "ENTSO-E - CIM Conformity and Interoperability" reference and the test suite details. tl;dr: there is case for allowing "Statements". Bare XML attribute `parseType` seems to be on dodgy ground. > @afs I don't understand parts of your answer: > > * Is there a "deprecation of parseType"? To me, rdf:parseType="Literal" does not seem to be deprecated. In the report, there is a bare `parseType` and no default namespace. Correct is a namespaced XML attribute (e.g. `rdf:parseType`). >> XML attribute 'parseType' used for RDF property attribute - ignored RDF 1.0 RDF/XML (https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-XML-literals) does not allow it. The fact ARP warns it is deprecated goes back a long time, pre RDF 1.0. I can't find a report of the deprecation - it's probbaly in email achieves pre-2004. This is unrelated to the use of "Statements". So the questions I have for bare `parseType`: * How common is bare `parseType` even in CIM usage? Basically - is the data wrong? A one off occurence? * Is it corrected in later versions/errata? If we take [ENTSO-E - CIM Conformity and Interoperability](https://www.entsoe.eu/data/cim/cim-conformity-and-interoperability/), then bare `parseType` is right only for data that has not been updated. The link seems to imply it's faulty data. But if it is common+common, saying "normal for CIM", then adding it directly to RRX stil has to answer whether it should allow non-standard us - it's bad use of XML. One possibility- add a "CIM" language with a "CIM Reader" that inherits from ParserRDFXML_SAX with customization hooks (or a context setting.) BTW, the RDF/XML writers don't write bare form. They will make up a namespace name if the data has not defined in the graph for `http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#`. > * "With corrections: (5.1.0 dev - there was a nearby change to RRX)" > --> The result looks okay, but what corrections? I checked out "main" with "5.1.0-SNAPSHOT" and still got the error. > > Since I also don't have access to the CIM IEC specifications, I can only refer to [ENTSO-E - CIM Conformity and Interoperability](https://www.entsoe.eu/data/cim/cim-conformity-and-interoperability/) where the latest "Version 3 since August 2022" of the "CGMES Conformity Assessment Scheme v3" contains examples using "rdf:parseType="Statements"" in the [Test Configurations v3.0.2](https://www.entsoe.eu/Documents/CIM_documents/Grid_Model_CIM/ENTSO-E_Test_Configurations_v3.0.2.zip) (e.g. ENTSO-E_Test_Configurations_v3.0.2/v3.0/FullGrid/FullGrid_OP_diff/FullGrid_OP_diff.xml). For "Statements", it is in a current spec and that could be added to the RRX parsers. The test don't have `rdf:parseType="Literal"`. Does CIM/ENTSO-E specific software accept `rdf:parseType="Literal"`? The information about the word used to create the `rdf:XMLLiteral` isn't retained. (And it would make a mess of term equality!) .The RDF/XML writers won't write "Statement". -- 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]
