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

Re: rdfms-xmllang alternatives

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:24:53 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 07:28 PM 7/23/01 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>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?

Because the definition of xml:lang (which is the defined syntax whose 
meaning we are trying to capture) is that the language code used is as 
defined by RFC 1766, now obsoleted by RFC 3066, which says:

2.4 Meaning of the language tag

    The language tag always defines a language as spoken (or written,
    signed or otherwise signaled) by human beings for communication of
    information to other human beings.  Computer languages such as
    programming languages are explicitly excluded.  There is no
    guaranteed relationship between languages whose tags begin with the
    same series of subtags; specifically, they are NOT guaranteed to be
    mutually intelligible, although it will sometimes be the case that
    they are.


Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 12:22:01 UTC

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