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

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

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:18:26 +0300
Message-ID: <004501c347ae$eece6090$f10ca20a@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org>

Didn't mean to force you to it. Sorry.

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "ext Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 11 July, 2003 16:13
Subject: Re: Some (more) thoughts on literals and language and XML


> 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 09:18:52 EDT

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