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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:48:18 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101426b8a57635acb8@[192.168.0.11]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: 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.)

Right, though I can see why they wanted that.

What we really need here is a distinction between 
no-language-specified (ie missing tag) which matches anything, and an 
actual or implied not-language tag meaning 'not in any human 
language', which doesn't match anything except the same datatype.

Which in turn suggests that a datatype should be thought of as a kind 
of formal language. You can write English in -en and you can write 
numerals in -xsd:number, right? In fact, it seems to me that 
datatypes and language tags are almost logically indistinguishable. 
They both impose lexical rules on strings, and impose some extra-RDF 
conditions on their interpretation. That actually would make more 
sense than saying that they weren't in any language (If they aren't 
in *any* language, how can you encode them in strings?)

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 Friday, 1 March 2002 13:48:16 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:13 EDT