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

Re: rdfms-xmllang alternatives

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:28:59 -0700
Message-Id: <v04210115b7828dbb90a2@[130.107.66.237]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Cc: 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.
>>
>>Advantages:
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Disadvantages:
>>
>>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.

Why not say that the language for those things is RDF?

Pat Hayes

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 22:28:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:15 EDT