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@[]>
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.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 11:15:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC