- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:33:15 +0100
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 17:27 18/10/2002 +0100, Jan Grant wrote: [...] >Regrets: (not listed in meeting - may be partial?) > Dan Brickley; Eric Miller I thought I'd said: regrets from DanBri and DaveB. [...] [...] >10.2 Do typed literals have a language identifier? > > There was a degree of debate on this issue as to where the language > tag should live (in the abstract syntax, for example) and whether > XSD-datatyped literals (eg, xsd:string) should carry an orthogonal > language-tag element. Patrick Stickler outlined Nokia's use case > in favour of this. Opponents argued on the basis that this was > adding complexity to RDF literals. > > Whether the language tag should take part in a value mapping > or simply be "available" to an application layer was also an > issue of contention. Jeremy's point was that RDF meaning was > realised by the model theory; to leave language tags out of the model > theory seemed incoherent. > > DECISION: datatyped literals CAN have a language tag in the abstract > syntax Please can the record reflect the strawpoll held on this question: are they [datatyped literals] allowed to have a lang string in the abs syntax"? 4 preferred they do an no one couldn't live with it. 5 preferred not with one can't live with. The can't live took precedence. One WG member later stated that they would "object" to this decision unless a datatyped literal denoted a pair consisting of a value and lang string. Brian
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 07:30:58 UTC