- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:57:58 -0400
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: kendall@monkeyfist.com, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jun 22, 2004, at 7:07 AM, Dave Beckett wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:01:43 -0400, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu> > wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 2004, at 9:04 AM, Kendall Clark wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 11:28:38AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote: >>> [snip] >>> You could use the N3 syntax, seperating the literal from the datatype >>>> and >>>> language with ^^ and @, eg. >>>> >>>> (foo, rdfs:label, ?x@jp) >>> >>> Hmm, that's an idea. >> >> I ran this by our FLA guy as one option from the start. This is >> certainly how I would do it in SWI Prolog, at least for the common >> case. > > (FLA guy?) Fujitsu Labs of America. This is a requirement generated from their Task Computing environment. > I think this a bad idea since it requires looking inside a RDF concept Literal? > which as far as I am aware, is not usually indexed by the common > RDF/OWL systems in that manner, although this does not preclude it. Does it need to be, in the common case? > Adding this requirement to a DAWG QL I think would make it less > likely that this part would be implemented. Ah. Hmm. Well, I won't argue this point further as it's not my prefered syntactic solution and if I'm dealing with a heck of a lot of lang filtering, I can beat on my vender to do the right sort of indexing regardless of syntax (I think). >> The other possibility was having a filter predicate for AND clauses >> (e.g., langEq). The latter was prefered. > > This is what I would prefer, selecting the language aspect of an RDF > literal > after SELECTion. This is what SeRQL does if I recall correctly, there > is a language() predicate for the constraint section - Ah, good, there is an existing predicate. We will be implementing this in the next month or so. > so it is already > implementable, and implemented. If some system did index on RDF > literal language it clearly could use this to advantage here. Yes. Ok. I think we agree. >> [snip] >>> I think Yoshio mentioned something back in the early days of the WG >>> about being sensitive to i18n issues, which this feature request >>> does. (If anyone needs to hear a use case, I can provide one related >>> to task computing in multilingual environments.) >> >> Or portals, or even ontology browsers. Anything that makes significant >> use of rdfs:label and wants to internationalize. > > I've built a few of those and it would haven been easy to look at the > RDF literals > returned and try to select those with an appropriate language (this is > not a > straight compare, but can involve matches such as 'fr' with 'fr-ca') Do you mean in application code? That is, of course, a possibility, but, IMHO and to our customer, not a very attractive one. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 05:58:09 UTC