Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): deprecate language tags?

On 05/03/11 23:50, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 09:24 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> We can allow language tags on xsd:string literals
>
> How?  I don't think so.  As I recall (from watching the group, not being
> in it like you), that was the constraint that got us into this mess in
> the first place.  The i18n WG said RDF had to have language tags on
> text, and the xsd WG said we couldn't put language tags on datatyped
> values.  So our best option seemed to be to have strings which were not
> datatyped values.
>
> We could try pushing on those constraints again and see what has
> changed, given years of additional experience.
>
> My first inclination, in approaching this ISSUE-12, is to first see if
> we can get rid of language-tagged literals.  Are there people who will
> fight to keep them?  If so, please speak up.   I know a lot has been
> invested in them over the years, but are people happy with the results?
> I genuinely don't know.
>
> To be a little more detailed, this straw proposal is:
>      - we weakly deprecate language-tagged literals, saying folks
>        should stop generating them
>      - we recommend a different way of getting the same functionality that
>        does not require changes to RDF, SPARQL, OWL, etc.
>      - we explain how to map from the old way to the new way, and
>        suggest that software do the conversion, offering higher layers
>        the new style of access, even if data came in "old style".
>
> There are several "new" ways to go, involving introducing one or more
> new nodes.  So, instead of:
>
>    db:cat dbo:abstract "The cat (Felis catus), also known as..."@en,
>                        "Le chat domestique (Felis silvestris..."@fr,
>                        ...
>
> We could instead have the abstract be a single "MultiLanguageString",
> which has versions in various languages, like this:
>
>    db:cat dbo:abstract [ l:en "The cat (Felis catus), also known as...";
>                          l:fr "Le chat domestique (Felis silvestris..."],
>                        ...
>
> ... or the abstract could have multiple values, each of which is a
> text-in-some-language, like this:
>
>    db:cat dbo:abstract [ a l:Text-en;
>                          l:text "The cat (Felis catus), also known as..."],
>                        [ a l:Text-fr;
>                          l:text "Le chat domestique (Felis silvestris..."],
>                        ...
>
> The first option has the advantages of brevity; the second allows more
> extension to many other kinds of annotations on the strings, aside from
> language, like long-version and short-version,
> approved/proposed/deprecated, or whatever.  I suspect it would be hard
> to pick between these two if we had to.
>
> Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about this issue.  I think
> language tagged literals are an unfortunately design, but I think most
> of the cost of them has already be paid for, and changing at this point
> would probably be more trouble than it's worth.  On the other hand, if
> it turns out folks are mostly avoiding language tagged literals in favor
> of one of the above styles, or something else, I wouldn't mind us
> changing.

I know of usage of ""@en, ""@fr but have never seen the [ a l:Text-en; 
""] , [ a l:Text-fr "" ] style.  Do you have any examples of it?

	Andy

Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 14:40:37 UTC