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: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 10:48:28 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020904101748.02d109b8@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 09:24 04/09/2002 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

[...]

>I am asserting that the xml:lang code is part of the *RDF* representation
>of the literal

I am not clear on what basis this assertion is being made.  Have I missed 
the point, or is this not the very issue that is being "discussed".

Perhaps being clear what the issue is and discussion of pro's and cons 
might be more productive than dogmatic assertion of individual viewpoints.

I think the question might be:

   Should the abstract syntax of a datatyped literal have an xml:lang 
component?

So far, I have seen:

   1) If its not then one can't usefully say:

      <rdfs:label rdf:lang="en" rdf:datatype="...string">foo</...
      <rdfs:label rdf:lang="fr" rdf:datatype="...string">bar</...

   2) the xml:lang component has no effect on the mapping from the lexical 
form to the value.

On this last point, do we expect that always to be the case?  What would we 
do if a new version of schema datatypes did take xml:lang into account?  Do 
we know they are unlikely to do this?

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 05:50:15 EDT

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