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

Re: Some (more) thoughts on literals and language and XML

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:13:44 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030711141001.02d4aeb8@127.0.0.1>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

I'd prefer that my comments were not interpreted as a vote at this time.

#g
--

At 16:03 11/07/03 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>Graham,
>
>If I've understood your thoughts below, it seems your
>present view is equal or close to
>
>Alternative 0: can live with
>Alternative 1: preferred
>Alternative 2: can't live with
>
>???
>
>Patrick
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ext Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org>
>To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>Sent: 11 July, 2003 15:06
>Subject: Some (more) thoughts on literals and language and XML
>
>
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I think that many of our ongoing difficulties stem from the introduction
>of
> > the XML datatyped literals without any real consensus as to what these
> > actually are.  I, for one, didn't fully recognize this lack of consensus
> > until Pat's posting [1] on the matter.  (I think the signs were previously
> > there to see -- e.g. in the discussion and uncertainty about XSD datatypes
> > -- but I for one failed to do so.)
> >
> > If this is so, then I think Patrick's (first) proposal [2] has an
>important
> > point in its favour:  it excises the feature for which there is lacking
> > consensus.  In so doing, considering Martin's response [3] to my earlier
> > message [4], I think it also satisfies the essential I18N requirements, in
> > that it removes any artificial distinction between literals with markup
>and
> > literals without markup, and allows either to carry a language tag.  (I
> > note, en passant, that my message [4] was stated conditionally, not as an
> > absolute position in its own right.)
> >
> > Conversely, I think that Patrick's second proposal [5] is a step in
> > entirely the wrong direction because it introduces a new concept of XML
> > literals, and I'm not convinced we would find any more consensus about
>that
> > than we would have about XML datatyped literals.
> >
> > Finally, I observe that dropping XML literals from the RDF specification
> > does not preclude the later introduction of XML literals as currently
> > defined -- they are simply another datatype.  The difference would be that
> > said datatype is not automatically signalled by the presence of
> > parseType="Literal".
> >
> > My general thrust is this:  can we resolve this issue by removing features
> > rather than by juggling with what appears to be a problematic confluence
>of
> > requirements.
> >
> > #g
> > --
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0067.html
> >
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0131.html
> >
> > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0124.html
> >
> > [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0117.html
> >
> > [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0151.html
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------
> > Graham Klyne
> > <GK@NineByNine.org>
> > PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
> >
> >

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 09:15:51 EDT

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