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

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

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:59:20 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030629084857.00a89ae8@localhost>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, misha.wolf@reuters.com, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Hello Dan, others,

Below some more on denotations vs. graphs.

At 09:03 03/06/26 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

>Hi Martin and company,
>
>The RDF Core WG discussed this stuff last Friday
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0156.html
>and I took the ball to get back to you.
>
>First, to clarify a bit...


>The RDF specs specify two relationships:
>(1) between an XML document and an RDF graph,
>aka hunk of syntax composed of literal terms, URI terms,
>bnode terms, and the like
>
>(2) between those terms and what they denote
>in an interpretation.

>It would be useful to know if making the denotations
>work out to be the same would suffice, or if
>your requirement is actually that the graphs
>work out the same.

While I still don't want to claim any kind of knowledge
about denotations, I think that I seem to remember that
in the last call draft, in the graph and in N-triples, all
types had language attached, but the denotation said that
language was only relevant for the special type used to
represent XML literals.

This seemed to have confused a lot of people, to the extent
that the RDF Core WG decided to fix it. (Unfortunately, rather
than actually fixing it by removing the language information
in the graph from all types except the one used to represent
XML literals, they threw out the baby with the bathwater and
removed it everywhere.) If differences between the graphs and
the denotations cause this kind of confusion, it seems that
it would be much better to be avoided.

[What are the other kinds of cases where the graphs and the
denotations are different?]


Regards,    Martin.
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2003 09:00:30 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:59 EDT