W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2003

Please Review: RDFCore WG new specs (2003-11-05), esp. w.r.t. I18N and XMLLiteral

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:07:12 -0400
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030917160712.GB17142@w3.org>

RDF IG,

Just in case anyone hadn't seen this (sorry should've mailed this list
earlier), the RDF Core WG have published 6 new Working Drafts 
(RDF Primer, Concepts, Semantics, Syntax, Schema, Tests) as well as a 
Working Group Note revising the LBase document. See announcement at 
http://www.w3.org/News/2003#item147 for details and links.

These documents consolidate changes and editorial improvements
undertaken in response to feedback received by RDF Core during the 
Last Call period which began on 23 January 2003.(*)

See each document for details of changes from previous versions. The WG 
would in particular like to draw attention to our current treatment of 
XML Literals, datatyping and Internationalization (xml:lang). 

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030905/#change details the exact
changes. We now treat XML literals uniformly alongside other typed
literals. Coupled with our simplified treatment of language tags in
literals (typed literals, including XML literals, no longer carry
language tags), this means that any language tagging of XML literal
content needs to be achieved through the 'payload' content of the XML
literal. The RDF/XML syntax does not 'push down' xml:lang declarations 
that occur outside each parseType="Literal" element, requiring 
xml:lang attribute to be explicitly used within each XML fragment. 
This design was reached after considering a variety of options 
and designs for RDF literals, datatyping and integration with 
the OWL language. The WG seeks feedback from implementors and 
users of RDF. discussion on the RDF IG lists is encouraged. 
Feedback to the Working Group on the specs should be sent 
to www-rdf-comments@w3.org

thanks,

Dan






(*) as I write this I note an unfortunate error in the Status section of
the Schema spec. I wrote (over-zealous search'n'replace...)
"...feedback received during the Last Call publication of the RDFCore
specifications which began on 05 September 2003." instead of giving the 
correct date, 23 January 2003. My apologies for any confusion.
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 12:07:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT