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

RE: typed literals and language tags - two proposals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:32:28 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90D9F@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 08 May, 2003 22:00
> To: Brian McBride
> Cc: Jeremy Carroll; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: typed literals and language tags - two proposals 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>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

Right. That would be expected.

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

Hmmm...

Well, if we could get away with it, then I agree that Option 4
would be the better choice (over Option 1 at least).

I would support either Option 1 or 4. I am unsure about
Option 2 and opposed to Option 3.

Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 05:41:25 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:29 EDT