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

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

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:11:30 +0200
To: <fmanola@mitre.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: ext Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8902492.E337%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-12 20:28, "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org> wrote:

> Patrick says the language is non-existent in the
> RDF graph.

Insofar as most examples, representations, DT discussions, etc. I.e. that
based on most materials and discussions, it seems to be a rather common
view that literals are simple strings. I've yet to see a single example
where the literal was represented as a string-language pairing.

Clearly, some implementations do treat literals as pairings.

It was stated that ARP does this, but if I enter

  <dc:title xml:lang="en">World Wide Web Consortium</dc:title>

in the W3C RDF validator, I don't see 'en' reflected in either the
triples or the graph. Is it then optional functionality not used
by the validator? Or is that functionality in a later version of ARP
than what is used by the validator?

(this isn't a criticism or refutation, just an honest question)

> 3.  P221 also says: "All RDF applications must specify whether or not
> language tagging in literals is
> significant; that is, whether or not language is considered when
> performing string matching or other processing."  [Note:  RDF
> application, not XML application].  If the language tagging is not
> available in what an RDF application processes, this doesn't appear to
> make any sense;  the application would have nothing to consider.  If an
> RDF application always processes an XML serialization, things would be
> OK.  But if an RDF application only processes triples (not an XML
> serialization), it seems to me we need to do one of two things:
> 
> a.  dispense with most, if not all, of P221:  not just the part that
> says that the language is considered part of the literal, but also the
> part that talks about RDF applications possibly considering language
> tagging in string matching and other processing.
> 
> b.  accept that the language information is *somehow* there in the
> literal (although the M&S doesn't say how).  Effectively, that sounds
> like a pair.

Agreed.

> [actually, maybe there's a c.:  change what we mean by "RDF
> application")

That sounds like fun (not ;-)

Patrick 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 07:10:08 EST

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