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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:15:29 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101405b8a2b5a8ba5c@[192.168.0.11]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>  >>>Patrick Stickler said:
>
>[...]
>
>>  > That said, the M&S view that the language is "part of" the
>>>  literal is not quite right, and probably should be adjusted
>>>  (or removed), in that, as with datatyping, language is a
>>>  property of the occurrence (context) of the literal
>>>  and not the literal itself.
>
>M&S defines language to be part of the literal.  Its simple: a 
>literal is a pair ("string", "lang").

If that is what a  literal is, why have we been using examples like 
"35" during the entire datatyping discussion? (Should these have been 
("35", "Mathematics") ?) How does one define the application of a 
datatype mapping to a (string, lang) pair ???

>My question was: does anyone have a compelling reason to change 
>this.  Do you have one Patrick?
>
>>  And especially since literals are
>>>  now tidy,
>
>The pair above is just as tidy as "string".

I think the point was that literals *without lang* are tidy, which is 
my understanding of the current situation.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 11:15:33 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:20 EDT