W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Language tags as values - document consequences (Concepts and MT)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:38:28 +0100
Message-ID: <518D3094.2000305@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 10/05/13 17:39, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> I think the consequences for treating language tags as values or as
>> lower case string in the value space are:
>>
>> Concepts: 1/ Remove ", and must be normalized to lowercase."
>>
>> 2/ Put in, after 5.1, a datatype description for rdf:langString.
>>
>> I think this should go in anyway so that concepts has more on
>> rdf:langString.
>>
>> 3/ Add rdf:langString as a to section 5.4 as recognized Datatype
>> IRI.
>>
>> MT: 4/ Remove requirement for rdf:langString.
>>
>> MT currently says that RDF processors "MUST recognize
>> rdf:langString and xsd:string".
>>
>> Instead, RDF processors are not required to recognize any datatype
>> IRIs.
>
> I like that, but please can we have a DECISION on this quickly, as it
> would need a major edit to Semantics. (It would make it a lot
> simpler. It is really a host of minor edits which I can do in one
> day.)
>
> Also, we still need to decide whether or not
> "Ilovelanguagefivehundred"@500^^rdf:langString  is just silly, or an
> ill-formed literal, or a syntax error. Its going to be a probem for
> someone, for sure, but if its ill-formed then it is a problem for
> me.

IMO

"Ilovelanguagefivehundred"@500

should be treated like "thenumber14"^^xsd:integer - fails as a 
D-entailment because the (generalised) lexical form 
("Ilovelanguagefivehundred", "500") has a language tag not matching the 
rules of BCP47.

This is independent of registration of language tags - we could add that 
it must be any current or previously registered language tag but the 
grammatical rules of BCP47 are enough and look to be the best future 
proof approach.

FWIW: The syntax rules of Turtle forbid it at the character-parsing 
level - not so for RDF/XML - but they do pass @XX-500.


	Andy

>
> Pat
>
> PS. For the record, built-in (required) datatypes are a royal PITA
> for the Semantics editor. rdf:XMLLiteral was a PITA in 2004 and
> xsd:string and rdf:langString are a PITA now. In Semantics they are
> like heavy sacks that you have to keep strapped to your belt all the
> time because regulations say you must, but all they do is get in the
> way and trip you up when you are in a hurry. But thats just from the
> editor's point of view.
>
>
>
>>
>> This licenses current systems.
>>
>> Recognizing xs:string is about bad characters in the lexical form.
>> This isn't what all systems do for, say, control characters.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC
> (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St.
> (850)202 4416   office Pensacola                            (850)202
> 4440   fax FL 32502                              (850)291 0667
> mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 17:39:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 May 2013 17:39:01 UTC