W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > April 2010

Re: FLD syntax question

From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:41:42 +0200
To: alexandre.riazanov@gmail.com
Cc: public-rif-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDD05F74C.DC9108ED-ONC1257704.0055D16B-C1257704.005638B4@fr.ibm.com>
Dear Dr. Riazanov, 
Thank you for pointing this out to us. 
PRD, BLD (hence Core), and FLD now include the following: 
The xml:lang attribute, as defined by 2.12 Language Identification of XML 
1.0 or its successor specifications in the W3C recommendation track, is 
optionally used to identify the language for the presentation of the Const 
to the user. It is allowed only in association with constants of the type 
rdf:plainLiteral. A compliant implementation MUST ignore the xml:lang 
attribute if the type of the Const is not rdf:plainLiteral. 
Best regards, 
-The RIF WG 

On Sat, 19 September 2009, you wrote:

I have a simple question about FLD syntax and semantics. 
The XMLSchema says: 

  <xs:element name="Const">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
      </xs:sequence>
      <xs:attribute name="type" type="xs:anyURI" use="required"/>
      <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang"/>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>


This means that syntactically there may be an "xml:lang" with any value of
the attribute "type".
I wonder if the use of a non-empty value in "xml:lang" with any "type"
rather than
rdf:PlainLiteral (http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#text)
should be considered a semantic error?

My guess is that it should not, but I want to be sure.

If it is not an error, then do we have to completely ignore the language
tags
in non-PlainLiteral constants?
If we do, then the following objects must be considered logically 
identical: 

<Const type="mytype" lang="en">
    abra kadabra
</Const>

and 

<Const type="mytype" lang="de">
    abra kadabra
</Const> 

because they only differ in the value of "lang".
This is not nice, so I guess we should distinguish them, but I would like 
to
be sure.

A quick answer would be appreciated, even if preliminary or just a 
reference

to a place in the proposals where this stuff is defined.

IBM
9 rue de Verdun
94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10


Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siege Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 611.451.766,20 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 15:42:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 April 2010 15:42:20 GMT