W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:55:44 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020211193957.02986d10@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 20:27 11/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
[...]
> > My question was: does anyone have a compelling reason to change this.  Do
> > you have one Patrick?

[...]

>A literal is not a pair ("string", "lang"). The M&S is wrong.

I was hoping for something a little more compelling than a bald assertion.

[...]


>So now,
>
>    <key xml:lang="en">pan</key>
>    <key xml:lang="sp">pan</key>
>
>do we get
>
>    xxx key "pan" .  ("en")
>    xxx key "pan" .  ("sp")
>
>or
>
>    xxx key ("pan","en") .
>    xxx key ("pan","sp") .


I do not understand the semantics of the difference between these two 
representations, so I can't answer that question.

>Now which represents tidy literals?

As above, I don't know.

>  And does
>that mean that for *every* query that compares
>literals one must specify language?

That seems to be an issue of query language design and out of scope of this 
discussion.


>And what about comparison of literals where one
>is specified for language and the other is not,
>do they match? No?

I would expect that we would define things such that they don't match.

>Why?

Because the language is part of the literal, and the languages don't match.


>Nope. I don't think that any of our discussions
>over the past few months have considered literals
>to be anything but the string.

Not since you joined, perhaps, but it has been an open issue all that time.

Brian
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 14:56:56 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:09 EDT