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

RE: Literals: language and xml (was: Comments on new datatyping document, part 1)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:35:24 +0200
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDOEBCCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


(agreeing with Patrick I think)

My view is that the abstract syntax will say something like:

A Literal Node is labelled with one of:
(a) - A datatype value
(b) - An rdf string literal
(c) - An rdf xml literal

Typical RDF/XML giving rise to (a) is:

<rdf:Description>
  <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">val<eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>

(Label is <xsd:string>"val")

(b)

<rdf:Description>
  <eg:prop>val<eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>

(Label is "val")

(c)
<rdf:Description>
  <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal">val<eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>

(Label is xml"val")


Adding an xml:lang we get:
(a)
<rdf:Description xml:lang="en">
  <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">val<eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>

(Label is "val"
It has to be an xsd:string, and so the language tag must be lost)

(b)

<rdf:Description xml:lang="en">
  <eg:prop>val<eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>

Label is "val"-en

(c)
<rdf:Description xml:lang="en">
  <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal">val<eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>

Label is xml"val"-en

The only choice is whether we allow:

<rdf:Description xml:lang="en">
  <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal" rdf:datatype="&xsd;string>val<eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>


If we did then the following would be problematic

<rdf:Description xml:lang="en">
  <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"
rdf:datatype="&xsd;string><b>val</b><eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>

My take is that it a syntax error.

Jeremy


>
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 09:36:34 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:58 EDT