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

#rdfms-literals-as-resources [was Re: draft partitioning of the issues]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:23:41 +0100
Message-ID: <3B39EC6D.DE3ED0FF@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2001, at 08:45  AM, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure that data uri's are in fact isomorphic with literals as
> > defined in m&s.  Consider:
> >
> > <rdf:Description>
> >   <foo:bar xml:lang="en">weekend</foo:bar>
> >   <foo:bar xml:lang="fr">weekend</foo:bar>
> > </rdf:Description>
> > ...<snip />
> > with data uri's it would be:
> >
> >   _:a <foo:bar> <data:text/plain;weekend> .
> >   <data:text/plain;weekend> <xml:lang> <data:text/plain;en> .
> >   <data:text/plain;weekend> <xml:lang> <data:text/plain;fr> .
> >
> > The later is not isomorphic with the former.
> 
> Who said it had to be this way? The outcome is dependent on the
> results of the xmllang issue, but I don't believe it's a stretch
> at all to see:
> 
>    _:a <foo:bar> <data:text/plain;lang=en;weekend> .
>    _:a <foo:bar> <data:text/plain;lang=fr;weekend> .
> 
> or some other, similar syntax to do the same thing.

I think one of the motivations for suggesting this change was to deal
with the xml:lang issue in the way I suggested.  I was just pointing
out that there were problems with this.

Could you just remind me what the advantages of representing literals
in this way would be.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 10:25:51 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:18 EDT