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

Re: Updated summary from I18N on 'XML Literals'

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:28:22 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030710102732.045f7f10@localhost>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

Hello Brian,

I agree that ideally, we would not need to fall back to these kinds
of arguments, and I sincerely hope that we can avoid it.

Regards,    Martin.

At 12:21 03/07/10 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:

>Hi Martin,
>
>Thanks for clarifying your view of the process issues here.  I'm in a
>bit of a bind.  I don't accept some of the points you make, but I don't
>see much value in a procedural wrangle.
>
>Brian
>
>On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 00:35, Martin Duerst wrote:
>
>[...]
> >
> > Procedural
> > ----------
> >
> > - It is our understanding that RDF Core was chartered with
> >    clarifying the RDF M&S spec, not changing it.
> >  Already by
> >    separating plain literals and XML literals, and much more
> >    by removing language information from XML literals, the
> >    new spec is a clear change from M&S, rather than a
> >    reinterpretation.
> >
> > - We agreed in Cannes that the ambiguity in M&S that RDF applications
> >    may or may not consider language information would be resolved
> >    to that the RDF graph would provide the language information.
> >
> > - Later, RDF Core asked us about the problem of integrating
> >    arbitrary pieces of XML without language information into
> >    an RDF/XML document. The same problem was brought up by
> >    XML Signature (or was it encryption) and SOAP. The I18N
> >    WG recognized this problem, checked with the experts on
> >    language tagging standards, and recommended to XML Core
> >    to issue an erratum to define xml:lang="" for this case,
> >    which they did.
> >
> > - Later, RDF Core asked about the applicability of language
> >    information to datatypes such as (XML Schema) integer.
> >    We told them that these were designed as language- and
> >    locale-independent datatypes, and so it would be appropriate
> >    to specify that they did not carry language information.
> >
> > - Although this was rather implicit (in the sense of a common
> >    understanding that didn't have to be made explicit), I think
> >    neither side ever assumed that removing language information
> >    from XML Schema simple datatypes would affect plain literals
> >    or XML literals.
> >
> > - After last call, RDF Core asked us whether we would be okay
> >    with removing language information from XML literals. It was
> >    nice for them to ask, but it also clearly indicates that they
> >    understood it to break our previous agreement. We had a look
> >    at it and decided that, for the reasons explained above, it
> >    would not be okay. It also helped us to understand that the
> >    RDF M&S design for literals had been changed rather substantially,
> >    with undesired consequences for internationalization, and that
> >    ideally, more than just putting language information back on
> >    XML literals was needed, but that if really necessary, we
> >    could live with only that change back (to the last call state).
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 10:38:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:44 EDT