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

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

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 15:15:56 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301151123.03a8d040@joy.songbird.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Pat, I don't think it's anything like that bad.

It is also possible for a literal/string to have *no* language, which is 
what I'd expect for (say) numbers.  (Though there was a suggestion from 
outside that no-language matches any language, which I'd oppose to avoid 
the kind of confusion you raise.)

I'm not sure what it would mean to write a literal "35"/fr, or whatever, 
but I'd assume that would not be in the range of the kinds of datatype we 
have been discussing.

Which is just my way of saying what others have said.

#g
--

At 10:25 AM 2/27/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Well, Brian, surely you might have mentioned this before, when the 
>datatyping discussion was in full progress, all predicated on the 
>assumption (and indeed the frequent explicit assertion, to which nobody 
>raised the slightest objection) that literals were strings. If literals 
>are not strings, then we have to go and do all that again, because NONE of 
>it makes any sense at all. What is the result of applying the 
>lexical-to-value mapping of xsd:number to the pair ("34", "french") ? Is 
>it the pair (34, "french" ) ? What would that mean ?

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 10:25:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:12 EDT