- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:48:28 +0100 (BST)
- To: Bill de hOra <bdehora@interx.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Bill de hOra wrote:
>
> Tim Berners-Lee:
> >>
> The idea of any "SHOULD" in the definition of equality for literals for
> any
> language give me the creeps.
> >>
>
> Which is to say 'should not' is inviting non-interop. Spot on. I reduced
> this constraint to 'should not' for a number of reasons, notably
> backward compatibility with text in the M&S, which fudges how lang tags
> affect comparison, and of which 'should not' is a reasonable
> interpretation, and the fact that a lang tag is optional. But really it
> all boils down to this sentence in the M&S:
>
> [[[
> the language of a literal is considered by RDF to be a part of the
> literal.
> ]]]
>
> The problem with that sentence is the word 'part'. Without falling down
> a mereological rathole, using 'part' there without some kind of
> explanation of what that means isn't helpful. Especially when the lang
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> tag is mandated to add no information to the consequent graph, and, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> processor is expected to indicate how it deals with lang tags. None of
> this helps interoperability.
I keep on seeing this. It isn't true. The lang tag might not cause any
new nodes and arcs to be added, but it _does_ add information to the
graph, because the literal node is labelled
(language, content)
and is distinct from the node labelled
(content)
...even if the contents are lexically identical.
--
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Leverage that synergy! Ooh yeah, looking good! Now stretch - and relax.
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 06:49:09 UTC