Re: @value/@type/@language combination

One could argue that as soon as you have used a different datatype it is no
longer text in that language. English language does not have <p> as one of
it's constructs.

I would probably have used Content-in-RDF for that use case. XML literals
in RDF are fragile and a relic of the RDF/XML days.
On 14 Aug 2014 01:07, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:

> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> We have a use case that would require all three of @value, @type and
> @language for a single resource, which is not allowed according to the
> specification (eg section 8.3)
>
> We would like to use either plain literals (and hence @value/@language) or
> X/HTML in the same space to allow basic styling and linking within the
> text.  We want to do this in a way that doesn't involve introspection of
> the value to determine whether it's text/plain or text/xml if at all
> possible.
>
> For example:
>
>
> {
>   "description": {
>     "@value":"<p>Some <b>description</b></p>",
>     "@type": "rdf:XMLLiteral",
>     "@language" : "en-latn"
>   }
> }
>
>
> Is there any existing best practice for how to accommodate this?
>
>
> Note that the RDF data model allows literals to have either a datatype or
> a language, but not both. JSON-LD is just being consistent here.
>
> In most applications (e.g., RDFa markup), the language is included in the
> markup:
>
> {
>   "description": {
>     "@value":"<p lang="en-latn">Some <b>description</b></p>",
>     "@type": "rdf:XMLLiteral"
>   }
> }
>
>
> Of course, it could be that you'd like to use @container=language, to
> index into different markup, but as you see, this isn't supported either in
> RDF or JSON-LD.
>
> Gregg
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rob
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
>