- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:24:22 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 10:49 21/10/2002 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
[...]
> >
> > 2) A datatype literal denotes a pair (val, lang) and then we have
> > (speaking loosely) French integers being different from English
> integers, i.e.
> >
> > <jenny> <age> "10"-"fr"-<http://...#decimal> .
> > <johnny> <age> "10"-"en"-<http://...#decimal> .
> >
> > does not entail
> >
> > <jenny> <age> _:l .
> > <johnny> <age> _:l .
> >
> > I really don't want to go anywhere near 2.
>
>I don't see why not.
I wondered if I should have spelt that out more. Ok, consider:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="jenny" xml:lang="en">
<foo:description>Jenny is a pretty girl</foo:description>
<foo:age rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer>10</foo:age>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Descriptin rdf:about="pierre" xml:lang="fr">
<foo:description>Pierre est un jolie garcon</foo:description>
<foo:age rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer>10</foo:age>
</rdf:Description>
Jenny and Pierre don't have the same age. I'm not sure I want to try and
justify to the xml schema datatype folks we have adopted their datatyping
mechanism.
[...]
>The risk of 'hey, why did you do it that way?' comments seems
>higher, to me, if we choose 1.
I agree that doesn't look good either, which would suggest we drop the lang
tag from the abstract syntax, but that invalidates the Nokia data, which is
undesirable.
I'm suggesting the WG consider which is the least damaging option we
have. Patrick: comment?
Brian
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 12:21:56 UTC