W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: ACTION 2003-03-14#6: comments on semantics doc

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:15:34 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Yes, I think that if we can reasonably simplify this area we should leap at 
the opportunity to do so.


At 08:41 15/04/2003 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>XMLLiterals and langauge tags
> >>a typed literal with a language tag
> >>is
> >>syntactically OK,
> >yes
> >>but ill-formed,
> >no, it just has some redundant information in it
>Pat is right, he is also right to say
> > FWIW, seems to me that by trying to keep the syntax a wee bit simpler
> > we have made everything else a lot more complicated. I would like to
> > see lang tags purged from typed  literals altogether, they seem to
> > play no useful role, even in XML (since you can always include them
> > in the actual XML document-character string, right?).
>I personally think we have 'new information' [1] in that the reagle decision
>allows a simplish resolution of pfps-08 to align XMLLiteral with the other
>datatypes, which then means that the lang tag would never be used on type
>literals and could be purged. I guess that procedurally that would be
>reopening reagle-01, reagle-02, pfps-08 - and it might be better to get on
>with the other issues first. (Even superficially related ones, such as
>danc-0? goofy literals, are orthogonal).
>[1] "So finish the job!  :-)"

Graham Klyne
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 11:30:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC