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: <>
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.


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>
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 10:25:21 UTC

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