W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: rdfms-xmllang alternatives

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:39:02 +0100
Message-ID: <3B5407B6.9052B89B@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 04:28  PM, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> > Properties with a language attribute are represented by a different
> > triple structure from those without (though those without could
> > be represented in a similar structure with the xml:lang property
> > omitted).
> 
> I think this is really another option -- I'll call it 2b:
> 
> <rdf:Description>
>    <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> _:a foo:bar _:b .
> _:b rdf:value "foobar" .

Yup.

> 
> Can we have a straw poll on what people want to go with?

Its not as easy as that.  Remember the charter.  We are not allowed
to change things just because we would have done it differently.

We have estblished (I claim) that the use of xml:lang in M&S is not
broken (there are several implemenations).  We have also established
that it is useful (Jan's use case).  That makes it a bit tricky to
justify changing it.

On what grounds are you proposing to justify a change. 

> 
> My vote (in order of preference): 2 (anonnode w/ xml:lang), 2b
> (anonnode always), 5 (remove it and recommend something else).

I'd rather see further analysis of pros and cons before we get to
that.

> 
> > ITS JUST HORRIBLE!
> 
> I just liked this comment... it's definitely how I feel sometimes. :-)

Hardly rational and scientific.  My excuse is it was getting late
after a long day.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2001 05:41:35 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:11 EDT