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 15:47:57 +0200
To: ext Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8903B2D.E39F%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-13 15:31, "ext Bill de hÓra" <dehora@eircom.net> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Stickler [mailto:patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
>> 
>> Why not define a URI scheme for RDF literals, and map
>> all literals to it, with a placeholder for language.
>> 
>> E.g.   lit:en:pan       'pan'/English
>>        lit:sp:pan       'pan'/Spanish
>>        lit::pan         'pan' (no language specified)
>> 
>> That solves the tidy literal business also, as all literal
>> nodes become URIref nodes and hence are tidy, and there are
>> only URIref nodes and bNodes in the graph. No literals in the
>> traditional sense. ;-)
> 
> How is this different from the data: URI proposal? In other words, if we
> were to do this, why not use an existing scheme?

Excellent question. I actually did think to mention the
data: URI scheme. If it does the job without any risk
of conflict or ambiguity, great.

I took the more constrained approach both for the sake of a
more focused example as well as for the extra control
that a dedicated URI scheme would afford us.

Still, if data: does the job, let's use it (presuming we
choose such a route).

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 08:46:40 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:10 EDT