W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Microdata to RDF: First Editor's Draft (ACTION-6)

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:34:20 -0400
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
CC: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>, "public-html-data-tf@w3.org" <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6628FE31-D5D5-4CAC-9A68-C78A6E9DFF9D@kellogg-assoc.com>
Language tagged literals are supported, but for some reason not on meta. See "property values" in my spec.

Gregg Kellogg
Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 18, 2011, at 2:24 PM, "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Hi Gavin,
> thanks for raising this. But as far as I can see, this issue is "still pending review" and anyway just considered for RDF 1.1, so current SPARQL implementations will still break on this.
> 
> Anyway, in this respect I think it is important to find a way to indicate the language of the value for a "content" attribute in 
> 
>   <meta content="xyz">
> 
> patterns in Microdata; I just found out that the language of the context will not be used by Microdata-to-RDF parsers.
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martin Hepp
>> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>>> Ah! Thanks! That is a bug in my RDFa example. In all GoodRelations examples, we use datatyping, except for xsd:string, because while this is theoretically needed, too, the distinction between plain literals and typed RDF literals with xsd:string as their type is hard to explain to practitioners.
>> 
>> The RDF WG has resolved to remove that distinction. "example" ==
>> "example"^^xsd:string the current working draft of RDF Concepts talks
>> more about this,
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Gavin
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 21:34:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 October 2011 21:35:00 GMT