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

Re: typed literals and language tags - two proposals

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 20:00:21 +0100
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <312.1052420421@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Brian McBride said:
> 
> At 13:39 08/05/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >These are for the Option 1 and Option 3, I will keep those names.
> >
> >Both options:
> >
> >PROPOSE reopen
> >   pfps-08 reagle-01 reagle-02
> 
> This looks like a larger change than I had realised.

Yes.

For option 1, reverting XML Literals into a 3rd type of literal again.
We should revert N-Triples to use XML"foo" with no language tag,
and the typed literals form loses its language tag too

For option 3, if I'm reading it right, the imaginary <rdf-wrapper>
element now seems to have been made real according to the Option 3 words
in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0016.html 
That would be a mess. N-Triples would remove the language tag from
the typed literals ie "foo"^^<datatypeuri>

> Can someone clearly state what advantage is gained from this.

I'm not so clear on this :)   What problem are we solving?

If language tags in typed literals (of all types) are a problem,
then remove them.  This was option 4.

The OWL tests Jeremy pointed out under Option 4 in
  http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposed-misc-200-xmlliteral
are not normative so <shrug/>.   Ruby defines it's own markup elements
for doing spans of languages.
(also the answers are not legal N-Triples even with the OWL test
 cases changes - a mistake I assume).

I don't think RDF M&S ever promised very strongly (or clearly!) that
xml:lang worked over rdf:parseType="Literal" so we would be
relatively OK to do this.  The main text on this is:

on parseType="Literal":

  [[The value 'Literal' specifies that the element content is to be
  treated as an RDF/XML literal; that is, the content must not be
  interpreted by an RDF processor]]

on xml:lang:

  [[The xml:lang attribute may be used as defined by [XML] to
  associate a language with the property value. There is no specific
  data model representation for xml:lang (i.e., it adds no triples to
  the data model); the language of a literal is considered by RDF to
  be a part of the literal. An application may ignore language
  tagging of a string. All RDF applications must specify whether or
  not language tagging in literals is significant; that is, whether
  or not language is considered when performing string matching or
  other processing.
  ]]

  from http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/

Combining those two might give that, but given the loophole that apps
could ignore it anyway, in the former spec, ...

I need some more information still.

Dave
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 15:02:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:28 EDT