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

Re: Summary of strings, markup, and language tagging in RDF (resend)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:28:25 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030703092313.04ec0380@localhost>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Brian_McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com

Hello Pat,

Many thanks for your mail.

At 20:52 03/07/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote:

>>The wrapper is one solution to carry the language information.
>>Of course you can choose whatever solution fits you best, but
>>you should not forget that there are other solutions. One of
>>them would be to handle XML Literals in the same way as plain
>>literals, carrying the language information separately. If that
>>can be done for plain literals, why can it not be done for
>>XML Literals?
>
>Martin puts his finger on the key point. It could be, but we chose a 
>design for XML literals in which the XML 'label' is treated as a built-in 
>datatype; which then puts a strong design constraint on us to treat it 
>uniformly with the other datatypes, and that in turn requires either than 
>it not have lang tags or that all other datatype namespaces have lang 
>tags.  The latter option is unworkable, so we chose the former.

I definitely do want to leave the choice of the actual details to the
RDF Core WG, but I just want to confirm that the design that Pat
laid out below would be as acceptable as wrappers or any other,
equivalent design.

I also have to admit that trying to treat XML literals exactly like
all other datatypes looks to me quite like the proverbial hammer
that sees everything as a nail.

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 11:23:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:42 EDT