- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:12:28 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, ext Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-03-15 11:48, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> Jenny ex:age "35"en-US .
>
> <==>
>
> Jenny ex:age _:x .
> _:x rdfs:dlex "35" .
> _:x rdfs:lang "en_US" .
I'm not sure if attaching the language property to
the same node as the rdfs:dlex is correct. I
would think that the language is qualifying the lexical
form, not the thing denoted by the lexical form.
Perhaps rdf:value, treated as expressing equality is
needed:
Jenny ex:age _:x .
_:x rdfs:dlex _:y .
_:y rdf:value "35" .
_:y xml:lang "en_US" .
(I think we should try to use xml:lang rather than
make our own property rdfs:lang, no need to reinvent
the wheel)
I'm also concerned about having to parse the actual
literals to derive such implications. If literal
structures are opaque, then a generic RDFS reasoner
won't be able to give us the above.
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 10:10:26 UTC