W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: State of language-tagged literals.

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:49:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4E41AB5B.2000106@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
This is a possible way of more uniformly treating language tags in the 
formal specs.  It adds a mechanism for mapping lexical form top lanuage 
string value.

Currently, each datatype defines an L2V Mapping from lexical space to 
value space. [1]

For example:

    "123"^^xsd:integer

and datatype xsd:integer gives us:

     L2V(xsd:integer)("123") -> the number 123


We have already discussed and discounted having a datatype for every 
language tag because the relationship of languages tags is nothing to do 
with a formal idea of sub-class relationship.

The value space of language tagged literals
is <Unicode String, lang tag>.


Language tagged literals could be treated in a similar way to other 
literals if we define the L2V mapping for rdf:LangString as:

L2V("en")("abc") = < "abc" , "en" >

This does not imply a separate datatype for every language tag.


This gives a formal treatment for rdf:LangString in mapping from lexical 
form to value space that is an extension of the current specification..

This does not change the abstract graph, nor any visible RDF - it 
changes the formal treatment of literals to be more uniform.

     Andy

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP


I note that owl:Real is a datatype without a L2V mapping.
"The owl:real datatype does not directly provide any lexical forms."[2]

[2] owl:Real --
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Real_Numbers.2C_Decimal_Numbers.2C_and_Integers
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 21:49:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT