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

Re: rdfms-xmllang alternatives

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:59:09 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 10:28 PM 7/16/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>I took an action at the last teleconference to write up
>alternative ways of resolving this issue.
>Option 1: No Change
>xml:lang attributes are considered to be 'part of' a literal.
>This is an issue that has caused some confusion amongst developers
>so we would need to write up a clarification of the specifications
>to explain more clearly what is going on.
>We would also need to modify n-triple to be able to represent the
>languague component of a literal.
>This is the simplest resolution.  It makes significant change to
>M&S and existing RDF processors which implemented the spec will
>be unaffected.  It requires only one triple to represent a
>property with a literal value.
>Does not represent language as a triple so requires special
>purpose processing to support, for example query.

Another possible disadvantage?:  not all literals are in some language.  It 
doesn't really make sense to specify a language for, say, a decimal number 
or a MIME type string.  Thus, we have some literals whose interpretation is 
dependent on an associated language attribute, and others whose 
interpretation may depend on other factors.


Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2001 13:08:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:50 UTC