Re: Microdata to RDF: First Editor's Draft (ACTION-6)

So someone should file an issue on this. It should be possible to specify the language of an invisible element.
If not for the Microdata spec, then at least for the Microdata-to-RDF extraction, where language tags are a first-class citizen.
Martin

On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:

> Language tagged literals are supported, but for some reason not on meta. See "property values" in my spec.
> 
> Gregg Kellogg
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 2:24 PM, "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Gavin,
>> thanks for raising this. But as far as I can see, this issue is "still pending review" and anyway just considered for RDF 1.1, so current SPARQL implementations will still break on this.
>> 
>> Anyway, in this respect I think it is important to find a way to indicate the language of the value for a "content" attribute in 
>> 
>>  <meta content="xyz">
>> 
>> patterns in Microdata; I just found out that the language of the context will not be used by Microdata-to-RDF parsers.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martin Hepp
>>> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>>>> Ah! Thanks! That is a bug in my RDFa example. In all GoodRelations examples, we use datatyping, except for xsd:string, because while this is theoretically needed, too, the distinction between plain literals and typed RDF literals with xsd:string as their type is hard to explain to practitioners.
>>> 
>>> The RDF WG has resolved to remove that distinction. "example" ==
>>> "example"^^xsd:string the current working draft of RDF Concepts talks
>>> more about this,
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Gavin
>>

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 22:21:42 UTC