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

RE: Datatyping: moving away from "literal as 3-part thing" to "literal as dt+opaque bit"

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:24:43 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B160C39@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 03 September, 2002 22:25
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Datatyping: moving away from "literal as 3-part thing" to
> "literal as dt+opaque bit"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick wrote:
> [[[
> Consider the following use case:
> 
>    <rdf:Description rdf:about="#TheEnglishLanguage">
>       <rdfs:label xml:lang="en" 
> rdfd:type="&xsd;string">English</rdfs:label>
>       <rdfs:label xml:lang="fi" 
> rdfd:type="&xsd;string">Englanti</rdfs:label>
>       <rdfs:label xml:lang="sp" 
> rdfd:type="&xsd;string">Ingles</rdfs:label>
>    </rdf:Description>
> 
> which I would expect to produce
> 
>    <#TheEnglishLanguage> rdfs:label xsd:string"English"-en .
>    <#TheEnglishLanguage> rdfs:label xsd:string"Englanti"-fi .
>    <#TheEnglishLanguage> rdfs:label xsd:string"Ingles"-sp .
> 
> so that my RDF application can choose which label is most appropriate,
> per the intentionally specified language.
> ]]]
> 
> 
> Paul Biron and Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> (in http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#string )
> [[[
>  Thus, string, as a simple type that can contain only 
> characters but not child 
> elements, is often not suitable for representing text. In 
> such situations, a 
> complex type that allows mixed content should be considered. For more 
> information, see Section 5.5 Any Element, Any Attribute of 
> [XML Schema 
> Language: Part 2(sic) Primer]. 
> ]]]
> 
> David Fallside wrote:
> (in http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#any )
> [[[
> In another example, we define a text type which is similar to 
> the text type 
> defined in XML Schema's introductory type library (see also 
> Section 5.4.1), 
> and is suitable for internationalized human-readable text. 
> The text type 
> allows an unrestricted mixture of character content and 
> element content from 
> any namespace, for example Ruby annotations, along with an 
> optional xml:lang 
> attribute.
> ]]]
> 
> 
> I think the XML Schema intent is clear.
> xml:lang is not part of the datatype lexical form or value; 
> if you want that 
> sort of functionality you are best advised to allow any xml, i.e. 
> rdf:parseType="Literal"
> 
> Jeremy

You are missing my point entirely.

I am not asserting that xml:lang is part of the XML Schema datatype
interpretation of the literal.

I am asserting that the xml:lang code is part of the *RDF* representation
of the literal, and made available to *RDF* applications, and when
it comes to interpret the unicode string portion of a literal in terms
of a datatype, that xml:lang code is not relevant.

Let me repeat again, in case the above was not sufficiently clear:

The xml:lang code is *not* part of RDF Datatyping, even though it might
be included in the structure of an RDF literal.

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 02:25:06 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:56 EDT