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

RE: XML observation

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:55:24 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030704094602.04f70510@localhost>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: phayes@ihmc.us, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 12:07 03/07/04 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:

>Consider:
>
>[[
>This sentence, which refers to the French sentence "La plume de am tante
>est rouge." is in English.
>]]
>
>This sentence is true, even though it contains a French sentence,
>because the French sentence is referred to in the sentence, but is not
>part of it.
>
>I don't think XML has such a mechanism for quoting bits of XML such as
>in the above sentence, so that contextual attributes such as xml base
>and xml lang don't apply inside them.  Patrick is arguing, I think, that
>parseType="Literal" is such a mechanism introduced into RDF/XML.

Quoting can be understood in various ways. One way is using escapes
and CDATA sections, which is a quoting on the XML syntax level for
the purpose of making XML examples. In your case, when you want to
integrate pieces of XML into each other, the main thing you want
is to make sure xml base and xml lang don't apply, use xml:base=''
xml:lang=''. That the later was missing originally indeed points
out that this wasn't thought through completely, but we fixed it.
(in the above case, you would of course use xml:lang='fr' :-)

BTW, I would like to insist again that because of examples such as
multilingual strings, bidirectionality, ruby, and so on, and the
fact that for the usage scenarios we see, XML Literals are just
extensions of plain literals, the need for keeping language on
XML literals is really not just because of RDF/XML (which is of
course also one of many reasons).

Regards,   Martin.



>[...]
>
> >
> > An RDF literal is precisely that, a *literal*. It should not
> > be infected with the contextual characteristics of the language
> > used to describe the data structures which encapsulate it.
>
>Martin has argued that it should and spelled out his reasons which I
>summarized in:
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0072.html
>
>It would be helpful if you could spell out the arguments for why a
>parseType="Literal" fragment should not inherit xml:lang from its
>context?
>
>Brian
>
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 10:12:21 EDT

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