Re: getting language tags out of the fundamental model (ISSUE-12)

On May 31, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> On 5/31/2011 8:54 AM, David Wood wrote:
>> On May 31, 2011, at 10:56, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2011 7:17 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> In other words, we could say "foo"@bar is syntactic sugar for something
>>>> like [ a rdf:LinguisticExpression; rdf:language "bar"; rdf:value "foo"].
>>>> I know that doesn't address everything, but it has pretty much the same
>>>> problems everything else does being modeled in RDF.  :-)
>>> That was a design considered and rejected by the previous group. Personally I prefer it; but I don't think we should reopen that can of worms.
>> At the risk of being difficult, why not?
> We have a standard - we have interoperability - it might not be perfect - it never is (at least in somebody's book); for me the lang tag stuff is not perfect - but the amount of benefit from a major reworking is not worth the interoperability cost

A few other bad things about that design. 

1. It replaces a single literal with two triples and a blank node, or else requires inventing a URI. For users who routinely tag text with languages, this is a real burden.

2. It allows pathological RDF such as 
[ a rdf:LingExp; rdf:lang "en", rdf:lang "fr" ]

3. It allows missing information, such as 
[ a rdf:LingExp; rdf:value "chat" ]
[ b rdf:LIngExp; rdf:lang "en" ]

I'm sure I can think of some more by tomorrow.


IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile

Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 05:44:47 UTC